New drug blocks HIV from entering cells

[Raistlin]

It's not their property - it's their right to their property. That's freedom. Only a dictatorship - the grossest evil - can take what is, by right, one person's and give it to another.

If I worked and invested hours and millions into the research of a product, it is my product. No one else has the right to it - no one else is entitled to it. If they want it, I must either give it to them of my own free will, or trade value for value(money in exchange for my product).

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

actually my life expectancy is higher because i get free health czre, (government did that). it's illegal for me to work in a factory or down the pits til i'm 16 (government did that too). sanitation was governed so i didn't get cholera (wanna guess who did that?) my bread doesn't have led in it and i don't life opposite a dung heap. (this too). my houses was built to regulations which meant it had clean running water, windows, ventilation, electricity and gas (and this). because people get a free education and so can go on to do great things (one guess). food is cheaper and in better condition (yep this one too). the air is cleaner (and this one). noone does 90mph down my street (they did that too). anymore....? yeah but it's time to stop.

1. So you're saying that your life expectancy was no way effected by the lightbulb, heating, air-conditioning, medical advances, electricity, and any sort of advance in technology? Food is cheaper because it's produced cheaper.
I would argue that the rest of those would've happened anyway(and even better) or were unnecessary.

taking money from the grossly rich is not the death of humanity.

It is the death of freedom.
How much money do I have to make before it's okay to steal from me?
I don't care if I have only one dollar or one million dollars - NO ONE is entitled to it.

[The Man]

You didn't answer the question. Why is their right to property more important than someone else's right to life? From what you're saying, taxes are an abomination and any government that taxes people should not exist. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if a government doesn't tax people, it can't do *anything.*

Taxes are an evil, but they are an utterly necessary one and far preferable to letting people die just because a few selfish people can't be arsed to pitch in a few dollars.

[Cloud No.9]

and taxes don't actually reduce anyone's actual income. such an idea is nonesense. more taxes just slow inflation.

if you have less money to spend then you can buy less. thus to keep up sales prices don't grow as rapidly or fall. thus you can afford much of the same as before.

conversely. if no taxes exist we can speed up inflation. we can make things more expensive quickr because people will be able to afford it and companies will make even larger profits. and so things are more expensive and so quality of life imrpves at the same rate as if you were taxes massively.

this is the law of inflation. more money in the market = higher prices.

"Give me liberty, or give me death." it's funny you quote this and don't see the irony. for many the excess charging and patenting of life saving medicines rids most people of this choice.

heating (gas an electricity0 both were government controlled when they were both necesssry (ww2) to keep the nation alive. same with the railways and pretty much everything else. and why was this? because it was deemed to be part of the war effort and so needed to be as effecient as possible. effecient? in a government owned system? can it be true? did we really win that war?

medical advacnes also in this country are mostly done by government nhs or univeristies (free because of the government too)

food is also cheaper becuase of the railway system (who used to own that one again?)

greed is the sign of an american man. the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.

[Teek]

You didn't answer the question. Why is their right to property more important than someone else's right to life? From what you're saying, taxes are an abomination and any government that taxes people should not exist. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if a government doesn't tax people, it can't do *anything.*

Taxes are an evil, but they are an utterly necessary one and far preferable to letting people die just because a few selfish people can't be arsed to pitch in a few dollars.

Taxes are necessary - and I would say that a person is pretty stupid if he or she was unwilling to pay for a government that protects his or her interests. What Raistlin is saying is to bring government down to its proper form, and taxes are a good. I don't want to be taxed because of any other reason.

And, Raistlin (and I) is saying that right to property and right to life shouldn't even be coinciding. It should never be a question of his property or his life. They are seperate beings; we're not a collective. In this case, because a man has AIDS does not give him the benefit of stealing from another and then crying that he had a right to life and therefore he is allowed the "right" to steal from another man. That's a slap in the face to rights in general.

"Give me liberty, or give me death." it's funny you quote this and don't see the irony. for many the excess charging and patenting of life saving medicines rids most people of this choice.

You must be laughing quite a bit; I don't see any irony whatsoever. You're justifying the end of freedom in its vilest form: in a self-righteous tone.

did we really win that war?

Yeah, and the USSR existed for eighty years. That didn't make it right. Pragmatism (the idea that whatever works is good) is really a simple (and incorrect) viewpoint on life.

medical advacnes also in this country are mostly done by government nhs or univeristies (free because of the government too)

Socialism tries to use this claim a lot. Everything is "free". 'Wouldn't you like free health care?' Well, obviously; I would love to just have it rain medication and take it from the sky. This is ignoring reality. We have to produce it. Single, individual men and women are advancing medical science; the government lays claim on it. Then it taxes its people an insane amount of money (making them poorer) and gives it to certain people who need it. It's not free. Nothing is ever free. When you begin to see the value behind money, you'll find that free-anything doesn't exist.

food is also cheaper becuase of the railway system (who used to own that one again?)

Please; see above.

greed is the sign of an american man.

In the way you mean it: yes, it is. In the way you mean it, I hope I'm greedy until the day I die.

the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.

This is, once again, a perversion. When will you stop your atavistic quest and listen once more: Many individuals are more than willing to help out in the spirit of good will. I do, as well. But the moment a person tells me I must help, or that he'll steal the money if I won't support it, then I'll treat him as he is: a criminal.

[Raistlin]

Taxes are only evil if they're involuntary - because then it's stealing.

You didn't answer the question. Why is their right to property more important than someone else's right to life?

It's not - they're one in the same. You can't have one without the other.

conversely. if no taxes exist we can speed up inflation. we can make things more expensive quickr because people will be able to afford it and companies will make even larger profits. and so things are more expensive and so quality of life imrpves at the same rate as if you were taxes massively.

Only in a government-controlled economy. In a free market, the market acts as its own check on inflation.

"Give me liberty, or give me death." it's funny you quote this and don't see the irony. for many the excess charging and patenting of life saving medicines rids most people of this choice.

So now you're arguing against patents? Nobody else is entitled to the product of anyone else's life.

food is also cheaper becuase of the railway system (who used to own that one again?)

It is ironic you mention the railways. The cause of the nonsensical, destructive antitrust laws.

greed is the sign of an american man. the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.

Justice is the sign of an American man - neither giving nor accepting the unearned. If I give something(and I have before), then I do so voluntarily, because I want to, for my own reasons. Forcing me to equates with pointing a gun to my head and demanding my money.

[The Man]

Sense is not being made here. How are right to property and right to life the same thing at all? Last I checked, the right to property and the right to life are two completely different items, and one of them is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, and one is not.

And how is it stealing to tax rich people so that people who can't afford medical treatment can continue to live? If taxing the masses is not theft, then I don't see how a "life tax" would qualify as stealing.

It sounds to me like what you two are arguing is because a few rich people don't want to pay the miniscule amount of money it would take to keep poor people with AIDS alive, those people don't deserve to be allowed to live. Is that what you're arguing? If so, come right out and admit it.

[Raistlin]

Sense is not being made here. How are right to property and right to life the same thing at all? Last I checked, the right to property and the right to life are two completely different items, and one of them is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, and one is not.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note that when that at the foundation of the country, we did not have income tax, we did not have government subsidies, we did not have welfare, we did not have any of that socialist crap. You cannot have the right to your life without the right to the product of your right. The right to your life in and of itself presupposes property rights.

And how is it stealing to tax rich people so that people who can't afford medical treatment can continue to live? If taxing the masses is not theft, then I don't see how a "life tax" would qualify as stealing.

Who said taxing the masses is not theft?

It sounds to me like what you two are arguing is because a few rich people don't want to pay the miniscule amount of money it would take to keep poor people with AIDS alive, those people don't deserve to be allowed to live. Is that what you're arguing? If so, come right out and admit it.

If researchers and investors had not already shelled out millions of dollars, we would not have come this far. But they did so by choice, of their own free will. It was not stolen from them.

[War Angel]

i get free health czre, (government did that)

No, the 'goverment' doesn't give you anything. Other people do. Other people, that work hard and long, pay for your healthcare, education and virtually everything the 'goverment' gives you. And that's cool - but abusing it is sheer evil.

Scientists made a medicine that can save lives. Awesome. However, it is THEIR drug, the fruit of their work. Of-course they will use it - but no-one should TAKE it from them. That's a crime. The goverment should buy the drug in large qunatities (meaning it would get it for cheap), then dispense it to the public for even cheaper prices (using money earned from taxes, trusts etc), thus using the drug efficiently. However, saying the drug belongs to everyone and thus the scientists who made it are 'greedy Americans' for wanting some profit off of it is.. well, horrible.

greed is the sign of an american man. the unwillingness to give up a small portion of his collosal wealth to help the sick and dying.

I'd watch my mouth if I were you. I'm not an American, and neither are you, I believe. I know quite a few people who would rid you of a limb or two for dissing their nationality and people. Not to mention, it's wrong and bigoted to say something like that.

[Cloud No.9]

okay i take back my thing about all americans being greedy and selfish and being totally cool with watching people die for money. some americans are like that. and far more than they should be. sorry and i hope my apology is accepted.

what you earn is not your life. you are not the car you drive, you are not the pool in your back garden, you are not your bank account, you are not your new armani jacket, you are not your italian leather shoes, you are not your 50' plasma tv. your life is what you acheive. and what you acheive is not the money you make. but the difference you make.

"did we really win that war?
Yeah, and the USSR existed for eighty years. That didn't make it right. Pragmatism (the idea that whatever works is good) is really a simple (and incorrect) viewpoint on life."

so what wasn't right? winning the war? or changing our systems to their most effecient forms so that we could win the war? either way it's pretty shocking that you would consider either an evil.

the right to life is above that of property. you can have less property and live happily. you cannot have less life.

[radyk05]

so, a guy studies in a private college years and years without any kind of grant ('cause his parents were rich but hated him for some reason so they didn't pay for his education) to become a doctor. a good doctor, mind you. he worked his ass off so he could pay for his studies in medicine and all that came with the student life. people need his help (after all, he is a doctor). is it wrong for him to charge the people who he helps?

[Cloud No.9]

well here doctor's don't charge anyway. i don't agree with private treatment or the queu jumpers who take it and the profiteering doctors who provide it.

and no a person should not be treated any differently due to how much he earns. a poor man has as much a right to these drugs as a rich man. the poor do not deserve to die for being poor.

and this is why socialism for such things is the right way. health care is a right everyone should be equally treated for. being rich does not entitle you to life anymore than a rich man. and the nhs does this. it does not provide for the rich purely for being rich and does not shun the poor for being poor. to say that a man is more entitled to life than others purely because of his bank details has got to be wrong.

that is quite a way round to answer your radyk05 but i hope you get the jist.

[The Man]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note that when that at the foundation of the country, we did not have income tax, we did not have government subsidies, we did not have welfare, we did not have any of that socialist crap. You cannot have the right to your life without the right to the product of your right. The right to your life in and of itself presupposes property rights.

No, it does not. You fail to explain how the right to your life includes the right to the product of your life. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say you get to keep every cent you earn, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say it should be a right. It seems to me that the right to go on living supersedes the right to keep every cent you own because the Founders explicitly enumerated it as a right.

Who said taxing the masses is not theft?

Oh, right. I guess funding government's not really that important.. Without "this socialist crap" we would have no armed forces, no law enforcement, no education system. Sounds like anarchy to me, but heaven forbid the government should steal from the people!

If researchers and investors had not already shelled out millions of dollars, we would not have come this far. But they did so by choice, of their own free will. It was not stolen from them.

You didn't answer my question. Are you arguing that people who can't afford to have treatment for AIDS deserve to die? A simple yes or no will do.

so, a guy studies in a private college years and years without any kind of grant ('cause his parents were rich but hated him for some reason so they didn't pay for his education) to become a doctor. a good doctor, mind you. he worked his ass off so he could pay for his studies in medicine and all that came with the student life. people need his help (after all, he is a doctor). is it wrong for him to charge the people who he helps?

He'd be earning money. The government would supply it for him.

[Raistlin]

No, it does not. You fail to explain how the right to your life includes the right to the product of your life. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say you get to keep every cent you earn, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say it should be a right. It seems to me that the right to go on living supersedes the right to keep every cent you own because the Founders explicitly enumerated it as a right.

If the government can take a cent, it can take everything. How can I have the right to my life if I have not right to its product - to my own earned effort? The government tells me I'm responsible for my mistakes - via jail time - but I'm not responsible for my profits? It's contradictory.
Also, it's called the 10th amendment - any rights not granted to the federal government is reserved for the people.

Oh, right. I guess funding government's not really that important.. Without "this socialist crap" we would have no armed forces, no law enforcement, no education system. Sounds like anarchy to me, but heaven forbid the government should steal from the people!

No - actually, armed forces, law enforcement, and legal system are the only moral forms of government, and if the government was broken down to just that, it could survive on minimum income.

You didn't answer my question. Are you arguing that people who can't afford to have treatment for AIDS deserve to die? A simple yes or no will do.

I'm saying that they DON'T have the right to make a claim on another person's life - they are not entitled to anything they themselves cannot earn. I'm not entitled to a cent that my own effort and my own mind cannot grant me.

He'd be earning money. The government would supply it for him.

And where would the government get that money?

[The Man]

You still haven't explained how the constitutional right to life extends to a right of property; you've just thrown rhetoric at me. It's good to know that you think people who can't afford to live don't deserve to live, though. Now at least I have some idea of where you really stand.

The tenth amendment delegates powers to the people; they have chosen to elect leaders who have chosen to tax them. If they did not want these leaders, they would not elect them. I find it highly unlikely that government could sustain the armed forces alone on "minimum income," which I don't understand and can't find in Wikipedia. Military spending alone accounts for billions of dollars in the budget.

Following your logic, it looks like you're saying that if people are incapable of having a job, they don't deserve to earn money. Is that the case? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.

And of course I'm saying that the money should come through taxation. Armed forces, law enforcement and legal system are important to me, but education and making sure people can live are more so. A functioning society cannot exist without education, and it reeks of Social Darwinism to say that those who cannot afford education do not deserve it.

[Raistlin]

You still haven't explained how the constitutional right to life extends to a right of property; you've just thrown rhetoric at me. It's good to know that you think people who can't afford to live don't deserve to live, though. Now at least I have some idea of where you really stand.

How have I not? It's called the 10th amendment. And you have yet to explain to me how I can have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if the government can take whatever they want, whenever they want.

I never said that they don't deserve to live. I said that they don't deserve anyone else's life. I'm not entitled to anything from you that you yourself don't give willingly. If a poor person with AIDS wants to ask for free treatment, the owners of the treatment are free to give it by choice. But once anyone who proclaims the need for something is entitled to it, you have communism - the most anti-life, anti-good, anti-progress form of government ever conceived.

The tenth amendment delegates powers to the people; they have chosen to elect leaders who have chosen to tax them. If they did not want these leaders, they would not elect them. I find it highly unlikely that government could sustain the armed forces alone on "minimum income," which I don't understand and can't find in Wikipedia. Military spending alone accounts for billions of dollars in the budget.

Because we have more invested in the armed forces than we need solely for our protection.

Following your logic, it looks like you're saying that if people are incapable of having a job, they don't deserve to earn money. Is that the case? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.

No - I'm saying they're incapable of earning money. Welfare and unemployment doesn't allow poor people to earn money; it takes the money from those who have earned it and gave it to the people who haven't.

We didn't have these socialist systems until the 30s/40s. Under a non-statist government, we had less a percentage of poor people then.

You're saying that the "ends justify the means." But if so, where does that end? Murder is justified, as long as it clears the way for public property; slavery is justified if those enslaved fight for the country(how do you feel about drafts? If you disagree with them, you contradict yourself); theft is justified if it is done for the "public good." What is the public? Is it everybody within a specific area? But not everybody uses a new road, or a new bridge. Then what is it? Is it some undefinable, intangible body over the individuals? If you can't define the term, how does the phrase "public good" even have any meaning? "This is done for JKSGDUF398DSFS!#." Does that make any more or less sense?
The "public" is merely a collection of individuals. Check the "needs of the masses vs. the needs of the individual" in EoEO - that thread supports pretty much everything I've said here. If the public is merely a collection of individuals, then the "good of the public" must be in the best interest of every individual. The only common interest every individual has is freedom. Therefore, logically, the only moral purpose for the government is to ensure freedom for everybody - by the exclusion of the initiation of force from human relationships. The logical conclusion of freedom is that no person has the right to initiate the use of force - this includes the government. Only retalitory force(self-defense, throwing someone in jail) is acceptable.

Force and freedom are opposites. Once a government legalizes the initation of force to seize private property by subjective whim(for the good of the undefinable "public") or to steal private income by equally subjective whim, it loses any right to proclaim freedom - it becomes a dictatorship. Such was evolution of Soviet Russia and other communist nations.

If the government was limited back to its only moral purpose - to protect individual rights, then it wouldn't need all this looted money from the people, and could go without income tax entirely - if necessary, resorting to other means of fund-raising(other means of taxation not based on income, charities, etc.). Also, those areas bereft of public funds, may even benefit from privitization. Privitization encourages competition, and competition encourages development - in a free nation. Such is the sound principle of capitalism. Note that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the degree of freedom of a country was proportional to its economic, industrial, and technological growth. The United States, by far the freest, achieved the most. Now, ever since the introduction of the welfare state, the degree of freedom is lowering, and the US is losing its standing as the industrial powerhouse. Not to say that the US is not the freest country(which it is) or probably still the leading economic, technological, and industrial nation(which it probably is in every respect) - but that it doesn't have such a huge lead anymore. With public education, public welfare, public social security - things are stagnating. This is no coincidence.

Freedom and force cannot coexist. I cannot go up to my neighbor, take out a gun, and demand he hand over his income or his property; why can the government do so to me? When a government claims a right on the life of every person in it, it turns from a free government to a dictatorship - ruler by force. There can be no compromise where freedom - the right to your life - is concerned.

And of course I'm saying that the money should come through taxation. Armed forces, law enforcement and legal system are important to me, but education and making sure people can live are more so. A functioning society cannot exist without education, and it reeks of Social Darwinism to say that those who cannot afford education do not deserve it.

Ever since public education, the US has been dropping in educational standards. We're now...what, 25th in the world? With our economic power, that's ridiculous. Privitization mean competition - which increases quality and decreases price. With privitized education("public" education is NOT free education), we would be getting BETTER education for LESS money - and it would be getting better and cheaper all the time.