Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
just compensation? a non-profit can use revenues for salaries. that is just compensation. profit is not.
|
Sigh... roadblock. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that "profit is not (just compensation)". Not sure what else to say here.
Quote:
|
stealing? you act as though existing ip law, existing conceptions of property and property relations are not political expressions. any legal parameter is a political parameter as well. in a case like this one, the thai government is effectively rejecting the political logic and enframes drugs as property in the way that a lawnmover is in the way that a hat is. seen from this angle, their actions are a political act.
|
Lots of things are political acts. Eminent domain is a political act, rejecting the political logic of real estate property rights. Indefinite detainment of enemy combatants is a political act, rejecting the political logic of the fourth amendment. And then there's the political act of patent breaking, rejecting the political logic of drug property rights.
So I don't really understand your point here. It's possible for a given political act to be morally reprehensible. I'm arguing that existing ip law isn't
solely political, it has a moral dimension as well. Every result of human deliberation does.
Quote:
|
another reason perhaps why the americans and their lackies in the wto have no moved against thailand over this may be that big pharma and the governmental apparatus that serves as its proxy does not want to find itself in a public legal fight in the context of which it would actually have to defend the "right" of tncs to subordinate the well-being of actual human beings to profit. such a proceeding would do irreperable damage to the logic that you would defend, fta: as theater, as political theater, forcing big pharma into basing a legal action on this logic would place them in a wholly untenable position.
|
Unpopular, probably, but certainly not untenable. People absolutely do have the right to hold profit above the well-being of other human beings. Companies are not and should not be required to ensure the safety and nourishment of a man two continents or two blocks away before profiting from goods sold or services rendered. It may be the morally ideal thing for that company to do, but it ain't the least bit moral to use the force of government to compel such actions.
There's no nobility in it. There's no sacrifice in it. Most importantly, there's no productive effort in it.
Because it's not your property that you're trying to give away.
Quote:
|
there is a problem in this. the problem is that the choice human well-being without regard to income vs. the desire of pharmaceutical firms to generate profits for shareholders IS an ethical problem and that there is no way to generate an ethical argument FOR the subordination of human life to profit.
|
An ethical argument for the subordination? I'm betting it could be done situationally, but in general, no, I agree. There is a way, however, to generate an ethical argument for ALLOWING others to make that subordination. See above.
To make it clear: I'm not defending the ethics, although I think it can sometimes - but definitely not always and probably not often - be done. What I'm defending is the right. Individuals should follow the golden rule. Collective power structures with a monopoly on the use of force - governments - should use the silver rule: don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done unto you. I wouldn't want other people deciding that I can't use my property in a way harmless to the property of others.
When you argue that the opposite side favors profit above all else, this is why you're off the mark: it's liberty that's favored above all else. Even when that liberty would let greed in through the backdoor of human depravity. It's not "human well-being versus corporate profits", it's human well-being versus human liberty. The two are frequently irreconcilable.