$10 drug now $1500 after FDA grants monopoly

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Mar 2011, 12:15 am

Orwell wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

You really are oblivious to my actual postings if that's your response.

You do not take Beck's word as Gospel Truth, therefore you are a radical left-wing Marxist Communist Nazi baby-killing Obama supporter. Those are the only two possible political persuasions.

Actually I don't take anyone's word in the media as the Gospel truth. I trust Beck to be honest when he says something, but I also know he is human and isn't right all the time.

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

15 Mar 2011, 12:16 am

There would be no patents or "intellectual property rights" in a truly free market. The only way that people could enforce such things is to execute people who produce the product without paying them.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Mar 2011, 12:23 am

xenon13 wrote:

Patents and copyright laws are actually needed in a truely free market, because taking other people's ideas and using them as your own could be argued to be stealing.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Mar 2011, 12:31 am

Inuyasha wrote:

xenon13 wrote:

Patents and copyright laws are actually needed in a truely free market, because taking other people's ideas and using them as your own could be argued to be stealing.

I assume xenon13 meant "truly free" as in a laissez-faire market with no government interference. Copyrights, patents, etc are a government-imposed regulation on the markets. There is an argument to be made over the merits of protecting IP, but at least acknowledge the fact that it is government involvement and regulation.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

15 Mar 2011, 12:47 am

Patents and intellectual property may be government regulation, but it is a rare instance in which some market interference is needed to give people incentive to create new innovations to help advance society and the economy. Why would someone bother to put hundreds or thousands of hours into an invention if a corporation could copy it and mass produce it and market it as it's own? Why would a corporation bother dumping millions or billions of dollars into making something if all the other corporations could go buy the new invention and then market identical versions of their own? The same applies to software, literature, and art as well.

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Mar 2011, 1:38 am

This company did not invent this product.

As far as Democrats, they don't hate women... they're just perfectly willing to throw them under the bus if it becomes politically convenient to do so.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

15 Mar 2011, 2:08 am

John_Browning wrote:

The government developed this one, it has no business being given to one company. Really they could have just required licenses to manufacture and/or sell this drug, the method they chose stinks of bribery.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Mar 2011, 7:01 am

xenon13 wrote:

If designs and ideas could be filched with no deterrence or penalty, would there be much incentive to invent any for general usage? What would be the payback?

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 15 Mar 2011, 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Mar 2011, 7:04 am

My opinion on "intellectual property" is still being refined but I generally am against it as it is the government granting someone a coercive monopoly that wouldn't otherwise exist. At the very least, our copyright/patent system is wholly abused and completely different than what our founders intended it to be in the constitution. It was meant to allow the actual creators of things a limited amount of time to profit from their work, key word being limited amount of time. Nowadays you(usually meaning corporations that buy the idea out from you) can essentially hold a patent or copyright forever and use it to stifle all competition. That's not promoting progress in science and useful arts, it's restricting it.

Last edited by Jacoby on 15 Mar 2011, 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Mar 2011, 10:28 am

John_Browning wrote:

Patents and intellectual property may be government regulation, but it is a rare instance in which some market interference is needed to give people incentive to create new innovations to help advance society and the economy. Why would someone bother to put hundreds or thousands of hours into an invention if a corporation could copy it and mass produce it and market it as it's own? Why would a corporation bother dumping millions or billions of dollars into making something if all the other corporations could go buy the new invention and then market identical versions of their own? The same applies to software, literature, and art as well.

Well, thank you for admitting that there are situations where government involvement is appropriate and desirable. From now on, any such involvement has to be debated on its actual merits, rather than just screaming "The government can't do that it's socialism!!1!1"

In this case, it actually was not appropriate, since the research to develop that drug was paid for with taxpayer money. It was funded by public money; ergo it belongs to the public, not one well-connected corporation.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Mar 2011, 10:51 am

John_Browning wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Who says that republicans are the only ones who hate women?

It doesn't say anything about politics in that article. When the FDA does something like that, it's usually because FDA officials got paid off.

No--FDA officials are government employees, and there are very strict laws against accepting bribes. If this did happen, then someone would be going to prison for a very long time.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Mar 2011, 10:56 am

pandabear wrote:

No--FDA officials are government employees, and there are very strict laws against accepting bribes. If this did happen, then someone would be going to prison for a very long time.

Are you making a subtle joke here?

ruveyn

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

15 Mar 2011, 12:32 pm

I've long had no faith in the FDA.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Mar 2011, 12:44 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

I've long had no faith in the FDA.

You have no faith in any government operation. Which is why it's integral that you don't vote or be involved in government at all: because you just encourage failure and lowered expectations and tolerance for lax standards.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Mar 2011, 1:30 pm

skafather84 wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

I've long had no faith in the FDA.

Then if you think you can do a better job how about you run for office...

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Mar 2011, 1:56 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

I've long had no faith in the FDA.

Then if you think you can do a better job how about you run for office...

I think I can do a better job in the voting both than you can considering I'm actually interested in government rather than the lackthereof...I'm no anarchist.

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

$10 drug now $1500 after FDA grants monopoly Post Reply New Topic

$10 drug now $1500 after FDA grants monopoly