Mephisto2

The last point was a rail against the "profit over people" approach and, by its very nature, cannot be proven. Any more than your opinion that "market dynamics" is a better framework for the majority of scientific/industrial progress. You have your opinion. I have mine.

If you honestly believe that the government should not spend any money on anything, then I respectfully think you are deluded. I could list things that have benefited from state sponsored research like car safety (do you honestly believe manufacturers would have spent money on crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, speed limiters etc?), research into proving industrial waste (such as dioxins) were harmful, research into diet & nutrition, into cancer etc. The list is almost endless.

Yet, your position is "if someone can make a buck from it, they will; so we should all sit back and die until the market dynamics make it such that we have no option but to pay a private enterprise for a solution/treatment/cure"

I simply don't subscribe to that attitude.

Here we differ again. I believe it is your obligation, or your duty (which is a term Americans seem to better appreciate) to pay taxes. There is accountability. That accountability is your right to vote for a party that promises to reduce taxes.

Well, how about a few examples?

Pacific Gas & Electric Company's release of the carcenogen hexavalent chromium into the Hinkley area? This was made famous by the Hollywood movie. Many people died or were made very ill, as the company valued their profit over people.

The refusal of tobacco companys to accept that their product kills people, when we all know that this is the case

The examples of Enron, MCI etc where greed was so great as to cause the company to act illegally.

The attempts by many multi-national pharmaceutical companies to prevent "generic" anti-AIDS drugs from being manufactured in Africa, because it would negatively affect their bottom line.

And these are just off the top of my head. I am sure I can come up with an almost endless list of examples.

Using human greed as a motivating factor towards progress is not a solution. I'm not saying the market economy should be abolished. Far from it. But we should not rely upon it alone, for to do so is to doom ourselves to exploitation and financial rape at the hands of those who care only for "the Mighty Dollar" and care not a whit for our health, safety and well-being.


You can start be reading the book The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ma...503_bigfix.cfm); researching the Anderson vs Pacific Gas & Electric (http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials...kovich_ch1.htm), reading about Enron (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=1586482017). I can provide more examples and links if you wish.

I'm not against an open economy. But I am against using it as the only method of investing in the future. You're mistaken if you believe it is the right thing to do.

Well, that's where you and I differ. :-)

I don't mind paying taxes. From a selfish point of view, and in an ideal world, I'd like them to be lower. But I would never deign to call for government funding of medical research to be abandoned because I'm willing to let a private company undertake it all.

Does it not occur to you that, if you were so unfortunate to have to use a cure "patented" by a private company, you may actually end up paying MORE than the miniscule amount of your taxes that go towards government grants?

No, not necessarily. I'm simply not advocating spending less; or worse, spending none at all.

A government cannot spend infinitely and no one suggested as much.


Mr Mephisto