"Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli convicted of fraud

[JA]

[JA]

     Nor should it be illegal to change prices to whatever the market will bear, but independent of that I am pleased that he got his just desserts.

Yes, it absolutely should be illegal. And, ideally, the prices for such medications wouldn't be set by for-profit companies in the first place.

[JA]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

[JA]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

No, the problem is still the worship of the market system and prioritization of the profit motive. Ideally, the workers themselves would have control over the entirety of the labor, production, and distribution process, thereby eliminating the element of profit altogether. But we don't live in the world of ideals. So, we must do what's second best, and employ the government to intervene, as the sole body capable of representing human interests against the power of capital, to prevent such escalation of price by absorbing the industry. I agree; let's not place an arbitrary cap on the profits of pharmaceutical companies, let's abolish their private profits entirely. Why? Because the interests of humans should always come first.

[JA]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

No, the problem is still the worship of the market system and prioritization of the profit motive. Ideally, the workers themselves would have control over the entirety of the labor, production, and distribution process, thereby eliminating the element of profit altogether. But we don't live in the world of ideals. So, we must do what's second best, and employ the government to intervene, as the sole body capable of representing human interests against the power of capital, to prevent such escalation of price by absorbing the industry. I agree; let's not place an arbitrary cap on the profits of pharmaceutical companies, let's abolish their private profits entirely. Why? Because the interests of humans should always come first.

     I knew you would make this point. These drugs are developed in pursuit of a profit motive. You seem to think that I am some Randian who fetishizes business for its own sake. I am not; rather I understand that people pursuing profits is why we have drugs in the first place and that profits are an important enabling factor of human innovation. I thought your original point was that dying of preventable illnesses wasn't in the interests of humans.

And, obviously, I don't share that conclusion. Therein lies the fundamental disagreement between us. Whether you are a Randian or not (which I know you're not) is rather beside the point; the point is that you prioritize the profit motive. Let me frame the issue this way: if there was objective, empirical evidence demonstrating that the profit motive, when applied to pharmaceuticals, results in lower quality R&D than the industry without the profit motivate (such as nationalization), would you still prefer the for-profit industry? Even that'd still ignore the problem of access, which is equally important as innovation. And, more importantly, your conclusion makes the baseless assumption that the profit motive is the sole or even primary driving force behind human innovation.