A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Crazed Rabbit]

The difference there is that Banquo and others paying high taxes still contribute more to government coffers than they get in subsidies.

When a political party tries to buy off the poor, then the governments spends much more on those people than it takes in. So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

Also, Banquo mentioned a desire to see the inheritance tax reduced because paying it requires selling off assets and firing employees - ie making the less fortunate even less fortunate.

CR

[Husar]

So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

So does buying off the rich, unless you also spend less, spending less on the poor for example would be an option, in the end the poor get almost nothing and they can't do anything about it because they cannot vote. So they become criminals for example. Then you have to fight criminality and that costs a lot of money....

[Beskar]

Reminds me of the Heinz's dilemna.

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The difference there is that Banquo and others paying high taxes still contribute more to government coffers than they get in subsidies.

When a political party tries to buy off the poor, then the governments spends much more on those people than it takes in. So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

Also, Banquo mentioned a desire to see the inheritance tax reduced because paying it requires selling off assets and firing employees - ie making the less fortunate even less fortunate.

CR

So it's ok to be bought off if you're Rich?

Long live the American Dream!

Many poor people contribute, just not fiscally. What about the low-wage, state-employed dustman that takes out your rubbish. You'd be pretty screwed without him, but you think he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it's ok to be bought off if you're Rich?

Long live the American Dream!

Many poor people contribute, just not fiscally. What about the low-wage, state-employed dustman that takes out your rubbish. You'd be pretty screwed without him, but you think he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Garbagemen in the US are generally paid a decent wage, and by private (state contracted) companies as well.

As for people being 'bought off' by the government ; it's not okay, but it is a fact of life, and at least with rich people they're still net contributors to the government. And reducing the estate tax helps more than just the rich.

Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Definitely.

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well? And why does the druggist refuse to be paid later? Why does he not consider that charging the maximum people will pay is not always the most profitable way? IN a free market, other companies would have seen the economic profit the druggist was making and entered the market themselves.

It's a very arbitrary scenario. Also, the druggist didn't charge ten times what it cost him to produce the drug; the drug was only ten times as expensive as the materials. Labor, various overhead costs (lab equipment, power, infrastructure, etc.), would have made the drug more expensive than $200 to produce.

CR

[Strike For The South]

I leave cases of beer for my garbage men.

We throw away allot of things, probably some that we shouldnt

[Beskar]

Definitely.

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well? And why does the druggist refuse to be paid later? Why does he not consider that charging the maximum people will pay is not always the most profitable way? IN a free market, other companies would have seen the economic profit the druggist was making and entered the market themselves.

It's a very arbitrary scenario. Also, the druggist didn't charge ten times what it cost him to produce the drug; the drug was only ten times as expensive as the materials. Labor, various overhead costs (lab equipment, power, infrastructure, etc.), would have made the drug more expensive than $200 to produce.

CR

I copy and pasted the scenario, but you can apply it to the real world. People cannot afford the healthcare, because the pharmacies charge people more money than they can pay (obviously upper middle class and above can pay). So Heinz cannot afford the drug, and the companies have it patented (don't forget about that), simply don't care, as they want to get as much bang for their buck as they can.

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.

As much as your intentions for a free market you have idealised to occur, the world doesn't work that way. People are greedy and selfish and they don't care if Heinz dies in a ditch along with his wife. The corperate CEO shrugs his shoulder and brags about his profit margins.

While you may feel I am an idealist, in many ways, I am and accept that. Unfortunately, your Free Market dream in many ways is more of a pipe-line. The reason we have regulation on corperations is to stop their immoral (sometimes arguably amoral) practises. Yes, this means the economy isn't a good as it should be, I sure we could have a far higher GDP by paying $5 a week wage to employees and mass selling our products elsewhere, like they do in India, but it is because we value human life and standard of living, that we don't. One of the perks of living in a Liberal Democracy, we are not treated as as those employees elsewhere in the developing world.

[Ronin]

are you people actually advocating that the right to vote should have to be bought?!?!

have you gone off your medication recently??

[Rhyfelwyr]

The healthiest form of democracy is one that looks after the rights of all its citizens.

With equal voting rights granted to every individual, this naturally allows the largest group to pursue their own benefit to the detriment of the state as a whole.

So if 70% of the population are workers/peasantry, 25% are burgeoisie, and 5% nobility, then with everyone having equal voting rights, 30% of the population will be wholly exluded from the running of the country, and that is hardly acceptable.

Therefore, it would be much better for the good of society as a whole if all classes were represented equally. If there were, say, 90 seats in parliament, 30 should be given to each class, regardless of their population share. This is what a liberal democracy is all about - representing everyone, not just a tyranny of the majority.

Without such checks and balances, the growing benefit-scrounging underclass will simply demand more and more from the government for nothing in return. And then they protest when it all goes wrong - and another Greece happens.

[Beskar]

So if 70% of the population are workers/peasantry, 25% are burgeoisie, and 5% nobility, then with everyone having equal voting rights, 30% of the population will be wholly exluded from the running of the country, and that is hardly acceptable.

Therefore, it would be much better for the good of society as a whole if all classes were represented equally. If there were, say, 90 seats in parliament, 30 should be given to each class, regardless of their population share. This is what a liberal democracy is all about - representing everyone, not just a tyranny of the majority.

Without such checks and balances, the growing benefit-scrounging underclass will simply demand more and more from the government for nothing in return. And then they protest when it all goes wrong - and another Greece happens.

Wait wait, what?!?! 5% of the population should have control of 33.3% the power?!

The nobles/super rich/burgeoisie have enough power as it is, through pure unadulted bribery *cough* lobbying, campaign donations and free board seats *cough*.

That is a terrible idea.


PS: I think you are confusing what burgeoisie are as well. They are the owners of the means of production. May it be a factory, land or shares. The "Middle Class" are simply wealthier proletariat who sometimes mistakenly think themselves as burgeoisie because they like to feel better than the ones below them. This doesn't really include 'small businesses' as well, because the non-chain cornershop owner has nothing on the CEO of Walmart.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

are you people actually advocating that the right to vote should have to be bought?!?!

have you gone off your medication recently??

No one has advocated such. Nor should they.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No one has advocated such. Nor should they.

That first sentence is disingenuous. You are proposing this scenario:

Gov: As long as I am getting more money from you then you are getting from me, you can vote.
Me: Ok, I got a 1000 from you, here is 2000.
Gov: Ok, you may vote.

This is the scenario of having to buy your vote:

Gov: I want some money from you if you want to vote.
Me: Ok here is a 1000.
Gov: Ok, now you can vote.

It's the same thing with different wording. In the end, you want to vote? Give the gov. your money. Hilarious that this is coming from conservatives. I will await your response where you attack the details (why didnt you just give 1001?!?!) instead of confronting the bigger point.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

Also, it is sad how you dehumanise your political targets.

This is the scenario of having to buy your vote:

Gov: I want some money from you if you want to vote.
Me: Ok here is a 1000.
Gov: Ok, now you can vote.

You are incorrect. No one is proposing that except you.

I said, many times, that is incorrect. The government, in my scenario, does not require money for someone to vote. If you are not getting any handouts from the government, than you don't have to pay anything in taxes.

CR

[jabarto]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You really shoudln't say things that are demonstrably false. You know, like this.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You really shoudln't say things that are demonstrably false. You know, like this.

Ah, and saying makes it so, then?

A. I'm not proposing that. I'm saying you are.
B. I have already stated that we all receive more from the gov. then we pay in taxes. Your logic is flawed no matter how you look at it.

Perhaps you should let me say what I'm proposing in the numerous posts I've made in this thread.

I also stated before that I'm just counting handouts and direct subsidies, not the nebulous benefit of roads, police, etc. That's not flawed logic, just the outlines of my proposal.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

T
You are incorrect. No one is proposing that except you.

I said, many times, that is incorrect. The government, in my scenario, does not require money for someone to vote. If you are not getting any handouts from the government, than you don't have to pay anything in taxes.

CR

A. I'm not proposing that. I'm saying you are.
B. I have already stated that we all receive more from the gov. then we pay in taxes. Your logic is flawed no matter how you look at it.

[Beskar]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

Countries are not free-loading, the Americans are just fools realising they are getting ripped off intentionally. What makes it more amusing, you are accusing other countries for Free Loading, because they are not buying into the scam.

Patents - I never complained, I just said what you said about a free market wouldn't work, as other drug companies wouldn't be able to produce the drug because of them which undermines your argument suggesting that they would, hence the heinz example wouldn't work.

Interesting that you struck out, like a trapped proverbial rat when I mentioned about big gaping flaws in your Free Market just by simply reminding you of things like patents.

[Husar]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

First off, the USA are not the only country inventing new drugs.

And secondly, while patents may be a good incentive to make people invent new things, they don't really promote a free market, and you should know that with such a quasi-monopole the price will be higher than it would be on the free market(the free market price would still cover the costs). Add to that, that with medication the buyer side is really inflexible and thus at a disadvantage(can't just switch to to a substitute) and your argument that the poor pharmaceutical companies really have to charge that much doesn't really hold up.
To counter Beskar's example you even said other companies would start producing the drug and the price would go down via free market, but that is not possible with patents, except if they can find a different drug with similar effects.
So at first you go and praise the free market and then you say patents are necessary because on a free market the companies couldn't survive.
So how could the companies solve this problem on a free market or does the free market fail whenever reasearch and developent are involved?
Maybe there should be a maximum length for patents, like one or two years, so the companies can get their R&D costs back and then the free market takes over?

We're also drifting away from the original topic, maybe a mod would want to move this into it's own thread?

[Beskar]

To counter Beskar's example you even said other companies would start producing the drug and the price would go down via free market, but that is not possible with patents, except if they can find a different drug with similar effects.
So at first you go and praise the free market and then you say patents are necessary because on a free market the companies couldn't survive.
So how could the companies solve this problem on a free market or does the free market fail whenever reasearch and developent are involved?
Maybe there should be a maximum length for patents, like one or two years, so the companies can get their R&D costs back and then the free market takes over?

I am glad i wasn't the only one who spotted that, I would have hated to be accused of making something up. For CR's benefit...

You said:

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well?

I replied:

the companies have it patented (don't forget about that)

Then you replied:

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

aka, I never even said anything postive nor negative against patents, my "moan" was reminding you that they exist. Then you attacked me reminding you they existed, saying I am hurting the poor companies, when it was you who said "what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well?"

Is this the end of the free market ideology for Crazed Rabbit? The distressed he showed as he basically attacked his own question? Will this expose the other hypocrisies in his logic and he will turn to the light? Tune in next time.