A good question for Capitalists.

[Gradualist Fool]

I've been wanting to reply to some of the threads in here, recently, especially the one regarding universal healthcare. Instead, I came up with a question for you:

Assuming that each person has their rational self-interest at heart and the medical industry runs according to supply and demand, in general, doctors should always prescribe the best medications and only prescribe medications which patients need. Since healthcare is sought solely in response to illness, demand for medicines should be inelastic. The only thing which could make demand for medicine increase or decrease is an increase or decrease in the overall health of the population. So, based upon the fact that demand for medicine should be inelastic, I have to ask: Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise?

Being that demand for medicine is inelastic, such advertising should be fruitless. By advertising, they can't increase demand because they can't "make people more sick." Doctors aren't going to give patients drugs just because patients have heard about certain drugs, nor are doctors watching the commercials going to give out certain drugs just because they see them on commercials a lot. Doctors will only give out the best drugs and only if necessary.

And so, what's the point of pharmaceutical advertising?

[CrazyModerate]

Advertising is in its nature against capitalism. Perfect competition can only exist if the consumer knows everything about every good. Advertising is simply another element of the broken capitalist system.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Then "Broken capitalism" is the only thing worth debating, since you're never getting consumers to know every last detail.


So would you accept advertising, particularly from pharmaceutical companies, as evidence of a failure in capitalism?

-Alex

[t_wolves_fan]

I've been wanting to reply to some of the threads in here, recently, especially the one regarding universal healthcare. Instead, I came up with a question for you:

I'm your huckleberry. And if you want the short short answer to your long-winded question, skip to the very end.


Assuming that each person has their rational self-interest at heart

Anyone, including capitalists, who thinks people's self-interest is or can be completely rational is severely deluded.


and the medical industry runs according to supply and demand, in general, doctors should always prescribe the best medications and only prescribe medications which patients need.

People being people two different doctors will often make different diagnoses, or when making the same diagnosis will believe different treatments are called for.


Since healthcare is sought solely in response to illness,

No it isn't, it's also sought to prevent illness (flu shot, for instance).


demand for medicines should be inelastic. The only thing which could make demand for medicine increase or decrease is an increase or decrease in the overall health of the population.

False assumption for the reasons stated above.


So, based upon the fact that demand for medicine should be inelastic, I have to ask: Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise?

Because there are different products to treat the same diseases. But considering some commercials for drugs never bother to tell you what the fuck they're supposed to treat, I can agree with you in those circumstances.

[colonelguppy]

Assuming that each person has their rational self-interest at heart and the medical industry runs according to supply and demand, in general, doctors should always prescribe the best medications and only prescribe medications which patients need

yeah i odn't understand why this would be so


Since healthcare is sought solely in response to illness, demand for medicines should be inelastic. The only thing which could make demand for medicine increase or decrease is an increase or decrease in the overall health of the population

demand for healthcare isn't inelastic, for one things there are many forms of healthcare with varying degrees of importances to people, affordability also plays an important role in demand. plus often times healthcare is is preventative and therefore largely discretionary.


So, based upon the fact that demand for medicine should be inelastic, I have to ask: Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise?

well because demand isn't inelastic. that and competition with other pharmeceutical companies.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 26, 2006 01:33 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 26, 2006 01:33 pm)
I've been wanting to reply to some of the threads in here, recently, especially the one regarding universal healthcare. Instead, I came up with a question for you:

I'm your huckleberry. And if you want the short short answer to your long-winded question, skip to the very end.


Assuming that each person has their rational self-interest at heart

Anyone, including capitalists, who thinks people's self-interest is or can be completely rational is severely deluded.


and the medical industry runs according to supply and demand, in general, doctors should always prescribe the best medications and only prescribe medications which patients need.

People being people two different doctors will often make different diagnoses, or when making the same diagnosis will believe different treatments are called for.


Since healthcare is sought solely in response to illness,

No it isn't, it's also sought to prevent illness (flu shot, for instance).


demand for medicines should be inelastic. The only thing which could make demand for medicine increase or decrease is an increase or decrease in the overall health of the population.

False assumption for the reasons stated above.


So, based upon the fact that demand for medicine should be inelastic, I have to ask: Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise?

Because there are different products to treat the same diseases. But considering some commercials for drugs never bother to tell you what the fuck they're supposed to treat, I can agree with you in those circumstances.[/b]


[email protected] 26, 2006 04:52 pm

Assuming that each person has their rational self-interest at heart and the medical industry runs according to supply and demand, in general, doctors should always prescribe the best medications and only prescribe medications which patients need

yeah i odn't understand why this would be so


Since healthcare is sought solely in response to illness, demand for medicines should be inelastic. The only thing which could make demand for medicine increase or decrease is an increase or decrease in the overall health of the population

demand for healthcare isn't inelastic, for one things there are many forms of healthcare with varying degrees of importances to people, affordability also plays an important role in demand. plus often times healthcare is is preventative and therefore largely discretionary.


So, based upon the fact that demand for medicine should be inelastic, I have to ask: Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise?

well because demand isn't inelastic. that and competition with other pharmeceutical companies.
Well, if people don't act in their rational self-interest, when some are more rational than others, doesn't this therefore lend credibility to capitalism being exploitative?

If one person is craftier than another, convinces them to agree to a sour deal, and afterwards, the person realizes what a bad deal it was, why should they be held accountable? So, deception is okay, provided that there's a signature on a piece of paper or items exchanged?

The prescription drugs advertised aren't preventative. In fact, I'm not even sure if they have "prescription drugs," for preventative measures, so that point is irrelevant.

And finally, if "people are people," and thus, "demand isn't elastic," so that doctors will prescribe drugs that aren't necessary or don't prescribe the best drugs, then this is rather disturbing. You mean to tell me that if I pour a billion dollars into advertising a cheap drug, the drug will sell at a higher rate than a better drug with less advertising? That doesn't really say much for privatized healthcare, now, does it?

I only made the assumptions of rational self-interest and doctors supplying only appropriate drugs, based upon supply and demand, because those are assumptions that tend to be made by capitalists about the healthcare system, in order to justify its effectiveness and to justify it, ethically. I agree that they're both baseless assumptions.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well, if people don't act in their rational self-interest, when some are more rational than others, doesn't this therefore lend credibility to capitalism being exploitative?

Not really because you're going to have a hard time correctly stating which person is really being "rational", since rational is in the eye of the beholder. Or have you like pretty much everyone else here assumed the title of "other people's best interest decider guy."?

And if someone gets what they want regardless of it being rational, how is that person being exploited?


If one person is craftier than another, convinces them to agree to a sour deal, and afterwards, the person realizes what a bad deal it was, why should they be held accountable? So, deception is okay, provided that there's a signature on a piece of paper or items exchanged?

If the person proposing the deal made false claims, he or she can be sued. If someone entered into a deal without properly considering the risks but was given factual information, then it's their fault for entering into the deal.

Are you under the impression we can eliminate risk or make life completely fair? If so, when you're done accomplishing those two tasks I ask you to build me a rocket bicycle I can fly to the Moon.


The prescription drugs advertised aren't preventative. In fact, I'm not even sure if they have "prescription drugs," for preventative measures, so that point is irrelevant.

Actually many of them are: the drugs I see most often advertized are to reduce cholesterol, which is a preventative measure.

You don't know a whole lot about medicine, do you.


And finally, if "people are people," and thus, "demand isn't elastic," so that doctors will prescribe drugs that aren't necessary or don't prescribe the best drugs, then this is rather disturbing. You mean to tell me that if I pour a billion dollars into advertising a cheap drug, the drug will sell at a higher rate than a better drug with less advertising? That doesn't really say much for privatized healthcare, now, does it?

That pretends the better drug is necessary in all cases. Medical cases often vary widely in their severity, meaning a less-quality drug may be adequate. That being the case, why burden the system with the extra cost of the higher-cost drug?


I only made the assumptions of rational self-interest and doctors supplying only appropriate drugs, based upon supply and demand, because those are assumptions that tend to be made by capitalists about the healthcare system, in order to justify its effectiveness and to justify it, ethically. I agree that they're both baseless assumptions.

Uh, no. The assumptions you made were false, and your assumption that the privatized system makes those assumptions was false.

Basically, you may as well have posted Gibbons' entire The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and it would have been as relevant.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Actually many of them are: the drugs I see most often advertized are to reduce cholesterol, which is a preventative measure.

You don't know a whole lot about medicine, do you.


Actually they're usually about blocked sinuses, in my part of the UK at least. A close second with heart burn. Both not preventative medicine.

However, I'm not going to make a derogatory comment referring to you knowing nothing about the subject. You were just slightly off. :)

-Alex

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:25 pm

Actually many of them are: the drugs I see most often advertized are to reduce cholesterol, which is a preventative measure.

You don't know a whole lot about medicine, do you.


Actually they're usually about blocked sinuses, in my part of the UK at least. A close second with heart burn. Both not preventative medicine.

However, I'm not going to make a derogatory comment referring to you knowing nothing about the subject. You were just slightly off. :)

-Alex
Well, I was only slightly off which commericals you see most on British television.

I'm willing to live with myself for making such a mistake.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

But the crucial point there is that it isn't preventative, and thus his original point that pharmaceutical advertising is useless holds, at least in that sense. Unless you have another argument, perhaps you'll concede the point?

-Alex

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:57 pm
But the crucial point there is that it isn't preventative, and thus his original point that pharmaceutical advertising is useless holds, at least in that sense. Unless you have another argument, perhaps you'll concede the point?

-Alex
No, because my point is not strictly limited to preventative medicine. Different companies make products that work differently or have different purposes. Therefore it makes sense for them to advertize these facts to the public.

For instance, if I see an ad for a new pill that cures a problem I have without the nasty side effects, and then my doctor prescribes me some other medicine that has side effects (and he does so either because he's not yet heard of the new medicine, or he thinks it sucks, or because he's crotchety and believes in a medicine that's been around forever, or because his wife left him for a salesman who pushes the new medicine), I can ask about the other medicine, thanks to the advertizement.

[colonelguppy]

Well, if people don't act in their rational self-interest, when some are more rational than others, doesn't this therefore lend credibility to capitalism being exploitative?

If one person is craftier than another, convinces them to agree to a sour deal, and afterwards, the person realizes what a bad deal it was, why should they be held accountable? So, deception is okay, provided that there's a signature on a piece of paper or items exchanged?

well no, fraud is illegal. if the terms are accurate and some one falls for a sucker deal, well they live and learn.


The prescription drugs advertised aren't preventative. In fact, I'm not even sure if they have "prescription drugs," for preventative measures, so that point is irrelevant.

And finally, if "people are people," and thus, "demand isn't elastic," so that doctors will prescribe drugs that aren't necessary or don't prescribe the best drugs, then this is rather disturbing.

sure there are preventive perscription drugs, for lowering cholesterol or body fat, maybe lowering blood pressure, keeping metablosim and digestion right, there are all sorts of things. and when faced with illness, not everyone always immediately goes to the doctor to get drugs, therefore advertising could be effective.


You mean to tell me that if I pour a billion dollars into advertising a cheap drug, the drug will sell at a higher rate than a better drug with less advertising? That doesn't really say much for privatized healthcare, now, does it?

well you'll probably make more money than the other guy who didn't advertise as much. i really have no idea what point against private healthcare you're trying to make.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

T Wolves Fan - Well it isn't much of an objection then, since preventative medicine isn't the only thing advertised. In fact, it's not even the majority, to my knowledge.

All pedantic quibbling aside though, the essential point is that health shouldn't be privatized I think. Pharmaceutical companies don't give a flying fuck if your leg drops off after taking one of their pills, so long as you keep quiet about it and buy some more. They exist to sell their products first, and make us healthier second.

-Alex

[t_wolves_fan]

T Wolves Fan - Well it isn't much of an objection then, since preventative medicine isn't the only thing advertised. In fact, it's not even the majority, to my knowledge.

This is really a quibble over BDL's claim in the original post that medicine purchases are inelastic because all such purchases are curative in nature.


All pedantic quibbling aside though, the essential point is that health shouldn't be privatized I think. Pharmaceutical companies don't give a flying fuck if your leg drops off after taking one of their pills, so long as you keep quiet about it and buy some more. They exist to sell their products first, and make us healthier second.

But they can't sell products if they don't make people healthier.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 26, 2006 07:16 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 26, 2006 07:16 pm)
Well, if people don't act in their rational self-interest, when some are more rational than others, doesn't this therefore lend credibility to capitalism being exploitative?

Not really because you're going to have a hard time correctly stating which person is really being "rational", since rational is in the eye of the beholder. Or have you like pretty much everyone else here assumed the title of "other people's best interest decider guy."?[/b]
To be rational is to be "in accordance with reason." If what is in accordance with reason is subjective, then how can you make ANY assertion of truth, whatsoever?


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:16 pm
And if someone gets what they want regardless of it being rational, how is that person being exploited?
Because if they weren't rational when they made the transaction and didn't fully comprehend what the deal was, they are exploited. In Ethics, an act is only defined as "human," if it's both rational and voluntary. So, if you sleepwalk, pick up a gun, and kill your wife, you're not responsible. And if you're mentally retarded or if you're a young child, and you pick up a gun and kill somebody, you're not responsible. Because in both cases, though the act was voluntary, it wasn't "rational," so it wasn't a human act. This is also expressed in contract law: young people and the mentally challenged can't sign contracts and contracts signed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol are void.

However, contract law is still flawed: When you turn 18, you don't all of a sudden become "rational," nor are all drunk people necessarily "irrational," nor are all sober and mentally-healthy people rational. It isn't black and white, but a spectrum which constantly changes and, overall, human beings are fairly irrational. Therefore, it's still possible for unjust deals to be made -- just look at companies which sell weight loss and penis enlargement products that don't work. The other day, my mother bought a pest control device put out by Black & Decker which plays supersonic sound waves to supposedly ward off insects and rats. Well, I looked into it, and research into such products show they don't work. More than that, they can cause headaches (I had a headache when I was around it). And from what I understand, long-term exposure to the device, especially children, could cause hearing damage.

Now, we can just return it at Home Depot. But let's say Home Depot refused to take it: The device was $20. Are we really going to sue for a device worth $20? No. Civil law doesn't protect against small theft, because people have no motivation when lawyers are expensive and there are court fees, plus there's the actual time involved in the case, where they must leave their jobs to settle the matter. And class-action lawsuits are difficult to set up. The U.S. government has also even been trying to restrict the use of class-action lawsuits for certain industries including (surprise!) the pharmaceutical industry.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:16 pm

If one person is craftier than another, convinces them to agree to a sour deal, and afterwards, the person realizes what a bad deal it was, why should they be held accountable? So, deception is okay, provided that there's a signature on a piece of paper or items exchanged?

If the person proposing the deal made false claims, he or she can be sued. If someone entered into a deal without properly considering the risks but was given factual information, then it's their fault for entering into the deal.
But lack of appropriate information should be considered fraud just as much as direct lying. Current property law is like a cartoon.

It's fraud if I had you a stick of dynamite and say, "This is not dynamite. Hold this."

But if I just say, "Hold this," give you the dynamite, and then run around the corner and push the lever on the TNT box, it's totally justifiable. Because I didn't lie. I just didn't tell you I was planning on blowing you to bits.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:16 pm
Are you under the impression we can eliminate risk or make life completely fair? If so, when you're done accomplishing those two tasks I ask you to build me a rocket bicycle I can fly to the Moon.
No, we can't make life completely fair. But I don't understand why what's fair to the wealthy should take precedence over what's fair to the poor. The government tends to favor the former group, so legislation which benefits the latter is always justifiable. Adam Smith said this in Wealth of Nations.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:16 pm

The prescription drugs advertised aren't preventative. In fact, I'm not even sure if they have "prescription drugs," for preventative measures, so that point is irrelevant.

Actually many of them are: the drugs I see most often advertized are to reduce cholesterol, which is a preventative measure.

You don't know a whole lot about medicine, do you.
Reduce cholesterol -- for people WITH higher cholesterol. They aren't totally healthy to begin with. They're old and have high cholesterol.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:16 pm

And finally, if "people are people," and thus, "demand isn't elastic," so that doctors will prescribe drugs that aren't necessary or don't prescribe the best drugs, then this is rather disturbing. You mean to tell me that if I pour a billion dollars into advertising a cheap drug, the drug will sell at a higher rate than a better drug with less advertising? That doesn't really say much for privatized healthcare, now, does it?

That pretends the better drug is necessary in all cases. Medical cases often vary widely in their severity, meaning a less-quality drug may be adequate. That being the case, why burden the system with the extra cost of the higher-cost drug?
I'm not defining "better," as meaning the most effective drug, medically. You're right: I leave that up to the consumer.

However, the doctor should already be aware of the various options -- different drugs with different side-effects and different costs -- and so, my point is that unless doctors are somehow inherently incompetent, drug advertising is pointless. That's the entire dilemma I've built here. Either you must admit that doctors are ignorant of the drugs out there and advertising fulfills that or that patients can convince doctors to give them drugs they don't need -- OR -- drug advertising is pointless.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 09:30 pm

Well, if people don't act in their rational self-interest, when some are more rational than others, doesn't this therefore lend credibility to capitalism being exploitative?

If one person is craftier than another, convinces them to agree to a sour deal, and afterwards, the person realizes what a bad deal it was, why should they be held accountable? So, deception is okay, provided that there's a signature on a piece of paper or items exchanged?

well no, fraud is illegal. if the terms are accurate and some one falls for a sucker deal, well they live and learn.
Fraud isn't illegal. Only fraud involving direct lies or gross deception is illegal in America. Minor fraud is totally legal.

Make money online! Be a millionaire!!!

http://www.cashrichluxurylife.com/

Also, historical theft is upheld as legitimate "property right."


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 09:30 pm

The prescription drugs advertised aren't preventative. In fact, I'm not even sure if they have "prescription drugs," for preventative measures, so that point is irrelevant.

And finally, if "people are people," and thus, "demand isn't elastic," so that doctors will prescribe drugs that aren't necessary or don't prescribe the best drugs, then this is rather disturbing.

sure there are preventive perscription drugs, for lowering cholesterol or body fat, maybe lowering blood pressure, keeping metablosim and digestion right, there are all sorts of things. and when faced with illness, not everyone always immediately goes to the doctor to get drugs, therefore advertising could be effective.
See what the others said regarding preventative drugs: they're irrelevant to the point, because of the non-preventative drug ads.


[email protected] 26, 2006 09:30 pm

You mean to tell me that if I pour a billion dollars into advertising a cheap drug, the drug will sell at a higher rate than a better drug with less advertising? That doesn't really say much for privatized healthcare, now, does it?

well you'll probably make more money than the other guy who didn't advertise as much. i really have no idea what point against private healthcare you're trying to make.
But then how would that be possible if the doctors should already be aware of the drugs out there? It implies that the doctors were ignorant or that the patient's knowledge of drugs somehow plays a role in treatment. Either case implies private healthcare is flawed.

[colonelguppy]

Fraud isn't illegal. Only fraud involving direct lies or gross deception is illegal in America. Minor fraud is totally legal.

Make money online! Be a millionaire!!!

http://www.cashrichluxurylife.com/

that isn't fraud. fraud is illegal.


Also, historical theft is upheld as legitimate "property right."

what


See what the others said regarding preventative drugs: they're irrelevant to the point, because of the non-preventative drug ads.

doesn't matter because buying pretty much any kind of drug is discretionary


ut then how would that be possible if the doctors should already be aware of the drugs out there? It implies that the doctors were ignorant or that the patient's knowledge of drugs somehow plays a role in treatment.

marketing doesn't effect doctors, and patients don't have a say in what drugs they want prescribed ot them? what about viagra, many people go into doctors offices requesting such drugs.


Either case implies private healthcare is flawed.

you've still yet to explain this

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 27, 2006 08:19 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 27, 2006 08:19 pm)
Fraud isn't illegal. Only fraud involving direct lies or gross deception is illegal in America. Minor fraud is totally legal.

Make money online! Be a millionaire!!!

http://www.cashrichluxurylife.com/

that isn't fraud. fraud is illegal.[/b]
That is fraud. You won't make any money from joining their program, but will only lose money. Even though they aren't lying, they are grossly misrepresenting their product.


Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:19 pm

Also, historical theft is upheld as legitimate "property right."

what
There are the most well-known examples: Native Americans, European slave trade, Aboriginals in Australia, but there are also the obscure cases. A primitive man stealing a loaf of bread from another man, thousands of years ago, would effect trillions in assets today. See my thread on property a while back. You responded to it. Did you actually read it?


[email protected] 27, 2006 08:19 pm

See what the others said regarding preventative drugs: they're irrelevant to the point, because of the non-preventative drug ads.
doesn't matter because buying pretty much any kind of drug is discretionary


ut then how would that be possible if the doctors should already be aware of the drugs out there? It implies that the doctors were ignorant or that the patient's knowledge of drugs somehow plays a role in treatment.

marketing doesn't effect doctors, and patients don't have a say in what drugs they want prescribed ot them? what about viagra, many people go into doctors offices requesting such drugs


Either case implies private healthcare is flawed.

you've still yet to explain this
Are you trying to tell me that patients know what's best for their health better than doctors do?

You say that patients do have a say in what drugs they get and drug-sales are "discretionary." The best healthcare involves a decision on the part of the doctor -- the patient can still say "I want this drug 'cuz it's cheaper and I prefer these side-effects," but then, it's up to the doctor to give them the correct information.

The doctor should already have that info, aside from commercials. So, either the doctor is ignorant or the commercials are worthless.

Do you follow?

It's a dilemma: You have to either admit that pharmaceutical companies are exploitative or admit that private medicine is greatly flawed.

[colonelguppy]

That is fraud. You won't make any money from joining their program, but will only lose money. Even though they aren't lying, they are grossly misrepresenting their product.

you have to lie to commit fraud


There are the most well-known examples: Native Americans, European slave trade, Aboriginals in Australia, but there are also the obscure cases. A primitive man stealing a loaf of bread from another man, thousands of years ago, would effect trillions in assets today. See my thread on property a while back. You responded to it. Did you actually read it?

if you're just going to spin the thread away into something completely irrelevant i probably shouldn't waste my time.


Are you trying to tell me that patients know what's best for their health better than doctors do?

no


You say that patients do have a say in what drugs they get and drug-sales are "discretionary." The best healthcare involves a decision on the part of the doctor -- the patient can still say "I want this drug 'cuz it's cheaper and I prefer these side-effects," but then, it's up to the doctor to give them the correct information.

but the marketing still effects the doctors, and the doctors only get to decide if the patients walk in the door to ask about the drug in the first place. so yes marketing does paly a role.


Do you follow?

It's a dilemma: You have to either admit that pharmaceutical companies are exploitative or admit that private medicine is greatly flawed.

what in gods name are you talking about?

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 09:02 pm


you have to lie to commit fraud


Fraud in the legal sense in just deception of decieving. Not nessecarily flat out lies.

Bait and Switch is a common fraud, for example.

[colonelguppy]

well yeah decpetion lying its all about representing blatantly false information to the consumer

[Tungsten]

Blue Dog Liberal

A primitive man stealing a loaf of bread from another man, thousands of years ago, would effect trillions in assets today.
It's irrelevent (in a modern context) what someone's ancestors did to someone else's ancestors, not to mention the questionable nature of such evidence. How do you prove it? Gonna call witnesses?

Your argument is illogical. If one of your ancestors was stolen from, how does it follow that you personally are entitled to compensation?

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 27, 2006 09:12 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 27, 2006 09:12 pm)well yeah decpetion lying its all about representing blatantly false information to the consumer[/b]
But the law only protects against such deception in a very limited sense.


[email protected] 27, 2006 10:15 pm
Blue Dog Liberal

A primitive man stealing a loaf of bread from another man, thousands of years ago, would effect trillions in assets today.
It's irrelevent (in a modern context) what someone's ancestors did to someone else's ancestors, not to mention the questionable nature of such evidence. How do you prove it? Gonna call witnesses?

Your argument is illogical. If one of your ancestors was stolen from, how does it follow that you personally are entitled to compensation?
That's off-topic. Post that comment here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57444&st=25) and I'll reply.

[t_wolves_fan]

To be rational is to be "in accordance with reason." If what is in accordance with reason is subjective, then how can you make ANY assertion of truth, whatsoever?

Pretty much sums up the problem, ace. The entire communist paradigm relies to varying degrees (depending on which angry teen or burnout I'm addressing) on society becoming far, far, far more "objective" and "rational" than it is today. The problem is, everyone in their own minds is acting rationally in their own interests. Do you really believe that in the future they'll all magically agree with your version of rationality? Why? What makes you different from them?



Because if they weren't rational when they made the transaction and didn't fully comprehend what the deal was, they are exploited.

Not necessarily, because...


In Ethics, an act is only defined as "human," if it's both rational and voluntary. So, if you sleepwalk, pick up a gun, and kill your wife, you're not responsible. And if you're mentally retarded or if you're a young child, and you pick up a gun and kill somebody, you're not responsible. Because in both cases, though the act was voluntary, it wasn't "rational," so it wasn't a human act. This is also expressed in contract law: young people and the mentally challenged can't sign contracts and contracts signed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol are void.

You only manage to cover sleepwalking, children, the mentally deficient and people on drugs. What about the other 90% of decisions made every single day by sober, other-wise intelligent adults? You don't know a whole lot about risk, because if you did you'd know that how people judge risk is often irrational. Study after study on risk has found that people are more risk adverse when the gain is minimal than they are when the potential loss is huge - contrary to what most people would say is "rational". Risk-taking itself can be rational even if the venture fails. Isn't it rational to look at the numbers and open your own business if you think the payoff could be handsome? But if you fail, is it because you were irrational? If failure is always irrational, how would any of us ever learn or improve our skills?

If I open a business on my own initiative, how have I been exploited?



Now, we can just return it (the bug device) at Home Depot. But let's say Home Depot refused to take it: The device was $20. Are we really going to sue for a device worth $20? No. Civil law doesn't protect against small theft, because people have no motivation when lawyers are expensive and there are court fees, plus there's the actual time involved in the case, where they must leave their jobs to settle the matter. And class-action lawsuits are difficult to set up. The U.S. government has also even been trying to restrict the use of class-action lawsuits for certain industries including (surprise!) the pharmaceutical industry.

$20 is hardly a great injustice. Why not simply consider this a learning experience?



But lack of appropriate information should be considered fraud just as much as direct lying. Current property law is like a cartoon.

I generally agree.


It's fraud if I had you a stick of dynamite and say, "This is not dynamite. Hold this."

But if I just say, "Hold this," give you the dynamite, and then run around the corner and push the lever on the TNT box, it's totally justifiable. Because I didn't lie. I just didn't tell you I was planning on blowing you to bits.

You'd still be prosecuted for murder, so what's your point?


No, we can't make life completely fair. But I don't understand why what's fair to the wealthy should take precedence over what's fair to the poor. The government tends to favor the former group, so legislation which benefits the latter is always justifiable. Adam Smith said this in Wealth of Nations.

This is a problem of the political process, not of capitalism. There is also a matter of perspective: I'm quite certain that a few wealthy people have purchased the same defective bug device you did and had similar problems. The injustice to them was no different in that you both lost $20, but the effect on a rich person was not as pronounced.

You're going to have to accept that poor people make a lot of stupid decisions. If they're defrauded that's wrong, but come on, are you going to ***** and whine about "injustice" if a poor person is dumb enough to spend money on penile enhancement products he sees while online?


However, the doctor should already be aware of the various options -- different drugs with different side-effects and different costs -- and so, my point is that unless doctors are somehow inherently incompetent, drug advertising is pointless. That's the entire dilemma I've built here. Either you must admit that doctors are ignorant of the drugs out there and advertising fulfills that or that patients can convince doctors to give them drugs they don't need -- OR -- drug advertising is pointless.

Either/or propositions are rarely accurate. A doctor is not necessarily inherently incompetent if he hasn't heard of a drug - doctor's are busy people just like you or me who have to find out of a drug's existence. Certainly word of mouth among fellow physicians or peer-reviewed journals and experimentation helps, but so does advertizing.

Do you work in medicine or know someone who does, out of curiosity?


Fraud isn't illegal. Only fraud involving direct lies or gross deception is illegal in America. Minor fraud is totally legal.

Make money online! Be a millionaire!!!

Why do you defend people who are dumb enough to fall for these schemes?