I only pointed out that you can't be an american and look down upon this as your country is built upon it.
Sadly, your point is irrelevant to the issue I raised; unwarranted, since I never claimed to be American; and flatly untrue, as millions of American citizens look down upon this and every other evil practice they perceive in their homeland's history and present. Are you seriously suggesting that a citizen can't feel shame about his country's shameful practices without being a hypocrite? Do you unquestioningly accept every policy of your own government?
Anyway, to what extent do you belive America was "built" on this practice? And what scholarly works can you recommend to me, that support your belief? Also, do you yourself have an opinion of these practices? Do you approve of them? Disapprove? Or is "morally ambiguous" your final answer? If it is, I can respect that. I'm just honestly curious. I keep saying I don't think Taiwan is doing the right thing, and all anybody else seems to be able to come up with in response is either violent flaming or totally irrelevant "if you think that and you're an American then you are a hypocrite" stuff. Is that really the best you can do?
Let's pretend that I agree with everything you have to say about patent law and how it is currently a bad thing.
How does this make Taiwan's actions morally righteous, as the/. editor implies?
It's only hypocritical if I say that America was right to get on top in this way, or if I say that I appreciate America being on top and I don't care how it got there (but I do care about how Taiwan secures its position).
Since I haven't said either of those things, no hypocrisy is in effect. You're welcome to assume that I believe America was also wrong to get on top in this way, or that I appreciate America's position but do not approve of some of the methods it used.
And I'm still not clear on your point: are you arguing that activities like this one are good for us, because they put countries like America on top?
Or are you saying that the greatest good Taiwan can offer its citizens and the rest of the world is to safeguard its citizens regardless of the expense to outsiders?
The/. editor who posted the article frames Taiwan's choice as a morally righteous choice. I disagree with this view.
I think the morally righteous choice would've been for the the Taiwanese government to either invest in their own bird flu treatments, or pay Roche the asking price for Roche's treatments.
What they've done instead is the expedient and corrupt choice: ignore their responsibility to their own citizens, and flout international law and custom to cover their ignorance.
In school, we call this "cheating". In academia, we call it "plagiarism". In property law, we call it "theft". In the Slashdot editorial offices, it's called "moral". What do you call it?
Yes, and the policy choices that led to such a pass were indeed shameful. Not only the U.S., but Canada, Great Britain, and all the other nations of Western Europe behaved shamefully in the years preceding World War II. Their governments and their people ignored the warning signs, refused to prevent or prepare for the conflict, and ultimately found themselves in a horrible situation almost entirely of their own making.
One of the many minor problems caused by this situation was the need to ignore patent law in order to resist the Nazi regime effectively. Expedience necessitated such actions, but that doesn't make those actions righteous.
And the Taiwanese government, in failing to make its own preparations against the bird flu, and unwilling to pay for preparations made by others, has likewise acted shamefully. It may be necessary, but it's no less shameful for all that.
I don't see how comparing the Taiwanese government's bad behavior to the bad behavior of the allies pre-WWII leads to the conclusion that the Taiwanese government isn't behaving badly. I assume that having considered the two scenarios yourself, you are in full agreement with me.
Roche is a Swiss company. I doubt the Taiwanese citizens have some kind of taxpayer's claim on their work product.
You seem to be implying that forcing people to do research is immoral because it's impractical, while stealing work product from people is cheap and easy, and therefore moral (in emergencies).
In reality, I'm willing to admit that in emergencies it's sometimes necessary to make expedient choices, rather than moral choices, and even that expediency can sometime be the moral choice.
But in this particular case, I don't see how it's moral for the Taiwanese government, to fail in its responsibility to provide its citizens with safeguards against the plague, and then exploit the work of someone else in order to make up for their own shortcomings.
The article was framed by the/. editor as showing moral courage on the part of the Taiwanese government. I don't see it that way. Rather, I think it shows moral weakness on the part of the Taiwanese government, that at the moment when their citizens need them most, they have to resort to such shenanigans in order to come through.
Nobody seems to like it when George W. Bush uses the weight of government to disrespect international law and to take whatever he wants without paying for it. Why should it be all rainbows and pretty flowers when the Taiwanese government acts the same way?
By now, my point should be clear. This is an important social issue (life != property) that is totally ON TOPIC with the original post regarding Taiwan ignoring patents for the sake of it's citizenry. Let's talk about that and leave the "WE HATE YOU >:-(" for another day.
Thank you for getting us back on topic;)
My only point was that the Taiwanese government has an obligation to safeguard its citizens, and that exploiting the work of others--rather than doing their own work to fulfill that obligation, and "stealing" that work rather than paying for it--doesn't seem like the "moral" thing to do.
What I'm opposed to here, more than even Taiwan's actions themselves, is the framing of these actions by the/. editor as morally correct, and to what I see as an unthinking approval of these actions on moral grounds by many of the commenters on this article. I can see these actions as being expedient perhaps, but morally correct? I'll need a lot more convincing on that score.
It's amazing to me that nobody seems to be able to address this point coherently (or even address it all all, really); let alone rebut it.
Care to take a shot at it? It is, after all, what you and I seem to be here to discuss...
He also implied, by placing the question in the context of his message, that the answer to the question why might have something to do with the twisted values expressed by his parent poster... Not that suicide bombers have any less twisted values.
Please explain why you believe my values are twisted, based on my original post (reproduced below for easy reference). Please also explain how a discussion of 9/11 helps us to better understand the morality of Taiwan's approach to discharging its duty to its citizens.
I mean, even the morality of Roche's work is irrelevant to this discussion. My only point is, Taiwan needed the work done, but the Taiwanese government did not invest in any such work. Instead, they waited for someone else to make the investment, and then profited from it at the expense of the investor. And that doesn't really strike me a "moral" choice for a government to make.
You bring up an interesting point. Look at it this way: The Taiwanese government, charged with the protection of their citizens, and taxing them for that very purpose, never saw fit to invest in their own safeguards against plagues like the bird flu. Nor does the Taiwanese government see fit to pay now the cost of such an investment, which Roche made for its own reasons.
So the Taiwanese government won't save its own citizens, and won't pay someone else to save its own citizens, but will gladly steal the results of someone else's work to save its own citizens. Doesn't it seem like Taiwan is behaving badly?
As I explained here, my contention is that the Taiwanese government could set up a non-free market for R&D any time it wanted to, and that Roche, operating in a moderately free market, would outperform such a hypothetical market. More to the point, it outperformed the Taiwanese government's existing R&D market. Also, that the Taiwanese government's capabilities, both real and potential, fell short of the "free(er) market". This contradicts the grandparent's argument that this scenario demonstrates that free markets aren't as efficient as government markets for this sort of thing.
I was thinking about Bayer, and its inability to enforce its patent on Aspirin. The result is that Bayer has to spend a lot of money marketing their brand of Aspirin. This is a huge chunk of their budget that isn't being spent on R&D for new medicines.
I was speculating that if Bayer had been allowed to keep its patent on Aspirin, it wouldn't have to spend so much money on marketing, and could spend more money on R&D.
Thus, my (speculative) conclusion that more robust patent enforcement (and longer patent lifetimes) could result in more new medicines. Not only would it allow pharmaceutical companies to shift more of their budget from marketing to R&D, but because of the profitability of patents properly enforced the incentive to make such a budgetary shift would be much greater.
It's a lot freer than a fully-regulated R&D market set up by the Taiwanese government set up for its own benefit.
My point wasn't that the pharmaceutical market is a perfectly free market. Rather, my point was that the Taiwanese government represents a perfectly (and completely) regulated market. Thus, if government programs were more efficient than the free market, the Taiwanese government should be able to set up its own R&D program, eliminate all free market influences on that program, and beat Roche to the punch.
But as we can see, governments aren't actually more efficient than moderately-free markets for this sort of thing. Q.E.D.
Are you saying that the government of other countries should be denied the same policy choice that the US made in the 1800s?
I don't know enough about the topic to make policy prescriptions. Please refer to my original post to determine exactly what I'm saying: Doesn't it seem like Taiwan is behaving badly?
How does your reply even begin to answer that question? Are you saying "yes, Taiwan appears to be behaving badly, but appearances can be deceiving; here's why their decision is actually righteous"? Or is it "yes, Taiwan is behaving badly... as did America, in times past"? Or is it maybe "Taiwan is doing the right thing... as did America, in times past"?
Also, some supporting evidence might be nice. But an actual argument for that evidence to support would be even nicer.
How does it make me a hypocrite? Have I said anywhere that America's behavior was excusable but Taiwan's was not?
Anyway, what's your point? Do you agree with me, that Taiwan is behaving badly? Are you arguing that America's behavior was also righteous, just as Taiwan's behavior is righteous now?
Or are you just one of those annoying little factoid-goblins, physically allergic to actually thinking seriously about an interesting issue?
My point, in other words, was that even if Roche were deprived of its patent worldwide, there would still be money for them to make by selling the drug in a more open market. Would it cover their R&D costs? I do believe so. Would it cover the money they may have spent advertising their product? Probably not.
And this is why drug companies spend so much more on advertising than on R&D: Because R&D just wastes huge amounts of money on patents they can't enforce, while advertising invests huge amounts of money in selling cheap drugs whose patents they can't enforce. Let them enforce their patents, and they might spend more on R&D...
TO be perfectly honest with you, I would rather see the drug not manufactured than witheld from needy people. Simply put, allowing people to die when we can save easily save them is wrong.
But what about people who have the ability to develop the drug, but choose not to, because they want to avoid this dilemma? Should the government be allowed to force them to do the work anyway? If not, why not? Isn't it the same as stealing their work? Either way, you're forcing them to work for you against their will. Isn't it still a kind of slavery?
And why is it that you would rather punish them for doing work, by stealing it from them? If you care about the people who need this work so much, shouldn't you be the first to call for rewarding those who do the work?
But, isn't this an excellent case where a free market is not the most efficient way to meet the needs of the world
What do you mean? The pharmaceutical company, operating in a free market, has already produced a treatment. The Taiwanese government, which could set up a government-regulated market for research and development any time in wants to, has produced nothing. Now, in the moment of crisis, it's stealing the work of the free market to cover its own responsibilities to its citizens.
It seems plain that the free market was much more efficient in this case. Unless by "efficient", you mean "didn't study for the test and copied somebody else's answers instead". But the word for that is actually "cheating".
Given sufficient money, we can hire a shark in pinstripes to compose an ethical fig leaf for our actions.
Failing that, for a little more money, we can just buy some politicians and have a law composed.
Is that what the Taiwanese government is doing, rather than investing in their own treatments for their own citizens? Steal somebody else's work and call it a moral victory?
I believe that Taiwan is doing the right thing, since the manufacturer of the bird flu drugs did not want to sell them the drugs for a price they were able/willing to pay.
You bring up an interesting point. Look at it this way: The Taiwanese government, charged with the protection of their citizens, and taxing them for that very purpose, never saw fit to invest in their own safeguards against plagues like the bird flu. Nor does the Taiwanese government see fit to pay now the cost of such an investment, which Roche made for its own reasons.
So the Taiwanese government won't save its own citizens, and won't pay someone else to save its own citizens, but will gladly steal the results of someone else's work to save its own citizens. Doesn't it seem like Taiwan is behaving badly?
And as long as the perfect continues to be the enemy of the good, situations like this will continue to arise as a natural side effect of human endeavors. In the event, the UK banking system and economy survived more or less intact, so by good fortune if nothing else the solution was "good enough", though clearly not perfect.
The U.S. Navy doesn't really get preoccupied by a land-based peacekeeping operation. Last year we had something like 7 carrier groups in or near the South China Sea. Any attempt by China to take Taiwan would involve moving a massive invasion force past the U.S. Navy, and support an incredibly costly amphibious assault against a modern, mechanized, entrenched defender. This is by far the worst kind of battle an army can face, and while China may well have the manpower to deliver a brute force solution, it's far from clear that they have the sealift capacity to mobilize or support an invasion force of adequate size in the face of U.S. air and sea power in the region.
Putting troops on the ground in China would be completely unecessary. All that is required is to sink their troopships and bomb their landing sites. What is the U.S. Navy doing in Iraq that would make such a task so difficult? And does the Chinese navy or air force even have the numbers, technology, or experience to compete with the U.S. for regional sea and air superiority?
If, as you say, China really were the dominant military power in the region, they would already have forced their will on Taiwan, regardless of whatever feeble forces the U.S. Navy had patrolling off their coast. In reality, the forces the U.S. Navy has patrolling off their coast is a credible deterrent for which they currently have no response. Except, possibly, some form of economic or nuclear blackmail.
But it's obvious they're still just trying to keep their economy healthy. They're still years away from waging open economic warfare. This is another reason why I think an eastward move will be their next step. More real estate for their growing population. Access to resource-rich territories contiguous with their current holdings. No opposition, except for a disorganized and dwindling Russian population. There would be a risk of nuclear conflict, though, which is probably why they haven't moved yet. That, and the upcoming Olypmiad.
It would only turn into a world war if some other nation outside of the region saw a profit in going up against Israel and the U.S. in a nuclear conflict.
It seems more likely to me that it would be a regional war, ended almost immediately when the rest of the world joined forces to slap that shit down.
Although I suppose China could decide that the time was ripe to make a play, exploiting the brief period chaos and confusion. But they could just as easily decide to save themselves for the easier and much more profitable westward expansion into Russia.
The only problem with this scenario is the same problem with the U.N. Human Rights Commission scenario: the worst human rights violators get a vote, and even get a regular turn chairing the thing.
Given that the conventional wisdom seems to be that what is good for the Internet is bad for the current Chinese regime, and what is good for the current Chinese regime is bad for the Internet, giving the current Chinese regime a greater say in the administration of the Internet seems like a step backwards. See also: The French, who have been very vocal and active lately about making the Internet suck even more than usual.
What, exactly, would the U.N. contribute to the Internet, except an increase in bureaucracy, government regulation, and wastage?
Nobody likes the amount of bureaucracy, government regulation, and wastage in the current America-managed Internet. I just don't see how turning it over to the U.N. would be an improvement. I always assumed that people preferred to make problems better, not worse. We should really be advocating less oversight, not more.
Thank you for the stimulating debate. It seems to me that when it comes to the practicalities of the real world, your views are closer to the truth than mine.
My hypothetical questions are interesting to me, but probably not very realistic.
Regarding my sig: Actually, I like organization. I see organization (in reasonable amounts) to be key to the success of any worthwhile endeavor. The sig is a jab at libertarians who seem to think that it's possible to have a well-organized community that doesn't end up looking exactly like a community with a government.
But that's a whole different can of worms, right there.
You must be right, the world doesn't *need* an effective and reliable information infrastructure.
Oh, the world "needs" effective and reliable information infrastructure, alright. And the world *has* effective and reliable information infrastructures.
But this article strongly implies that the Internet is not such an infrastructure (e.g., the lack of guaranteed connectivity between feuding backbone providers). My question is, to the extent that the Internet is not such a (i.e., to the extent that it proves to be ineffecitve and unreliable), so what if it deteriorates?
So far we've been arguing about the Internet's importance and/or stability. But what about the other aspect of the question: what would happen if the Internet turns out to be less stable/effective/reliable in its current form than we thought? My guess is we'll promptly discover that, VOIP notwithstanding, the Internet also isn't as useful as we thought. (More precisely, my guess is we'll find that other implementations of similar networking ideas are even more useful, effective, and reliable, and that the obsolete architectures may or may not be integrated into the new solutions, but will not be overly missed if and when they are abandoned.)
Perhaps it might be more appropriate to compare the Internet to the earliest telephone implementations, rather than to the well-established telco infrastructure of the 1970s.
My sense is that the Internet is still in its infancy, and that its future form(s) may well abandon the whole "www.foo" and "routed IP traffic" concepts in favor of something much more advanced, robust, and long-lived.
Also, that it's not clear that the Internet is a "step forward" in the long run, nor that this or that technological experiment or setback is really a "step back".
Also, that while the telco system changes didn't involve many end-user changes (although it did involve the major change of allowing end-users and third parties to manufacture, install, and service their own equipment on the telco infrastructure), that doesn't mean that changes to the Internet must not involve any end-user changes. Perhaps that's the part that will need the most changing?
Also, that while the telco changes didn't involve many overt changes to the routinging protocols, that doesn't mean that the Internet's routing protocols must never change. Nor does it mean that the Internet's routing protocol changes must be backwards-compatible with obsolete routing methods.
Also, that it's not at all clear that being able to type "www.foo" from anywhere and get to where you want to go is truly important, even in the context of the Internet, and therefore so what if it stops working?
Also, that it's not at all clear that anything truly important hinges on the success of the Internet in its current form, and therefore so what if it stops working?
=========
MONKEY: Thanks to routing disputes between Level 1 ISPs, I can't always get routed to the website I desire!
PANTS: So what?
MONKEY: But I could yestreday!
PANTS: So what?
MONKEY: But it was cool!
PANTS: So what?
MONKEY:...
PANTS: No, seriously, so what? What is so important about being able to get to your website from anywhere in the world, that we must make sure never to do anything that might jeopardize that? You got by just fine without it the day before yestreday. Why wouldn't you get by just fine without it the day after tomorrow?
Slashdot Mirror
I only pointed out that you can't be an american and look down upon this as your country is built upon it.
Sadly, your point is irrelevant to the issue I raised; unwarranted, since I never claimed to be American; and flatly untrue, as millions of American citizens look down upon this and every other evil practice they perceive in their homeland's history and present. Are you seriously suggesting that a citizen can't feel shame about his country's shameful practices without being a hypocrite? Do you unquestioningly accept every policy of your own government?
Anyway, to what extent do you belive America was "built" on this practice? And what scholarly works can you recommend to me, that support your belief? Also, do you yourself have an opinion of these practices? Do you approve of them? Disapprove? Or is "morally ambiguous" your final answer? If it is, I can respect that. I'm just honestly curious. I keep saying I don't think Taiwan is doing the right thing, and all anybody else seems to be able to come up with in response is either violent flaming or totally irrelevant "if you think that and you're an American then you are a hypocrite" stuff. Is that really the best you can do?
Let's pretend that I agree with everything you have to say about patent law and how it is currently a bad thing. How does this make Taiwan's actions morally righteous, as the /. editor implies?
It's only hypocritical if I say that America was right to get on top in this way, or if I say that I appreciate America being on top and I don't care how it got there (but I do care about how Taiwan secures its position).
/. editor who posted the article frames Taiwan's choice as a morally righteous choice. I disagree with this view.
Since I haven't said either of those things, no hypocrisy is in effect. You're welcome to assume that I believe America was also wrong to get on top in this way, or that I appreciate America's position but do not approve of some of the methods it used.
And I'm still not clear on your point: are you arguing that activities like this one are good for us, because they put countries like America on top?
Or are you saying that the greatest good Taiwan can offer its citizens and the rest of the world is to safeguard its citizens regardless of the expense to outsiders?
The
I think the morally righteous choice would've been for the the Taiwanese government to either invest in their own bird flu treatments, or pay Roche the asking price for Roche's treatments.
What they've done instead is the expedient and corrupt choice: ignore their responsibility to their own citizens, and flout international law and custom to cover their ignorance.
In school, we call this "cheating". In academia, we call it "plagiarism". In property law, we call it "theft". In the Slashdot editorial offices, it's called "moral". What do you call it?
Please enjoy this tasty rebuttal.
Yes, and the policy choices that led to such a pass were indeed shameful. Not only the U.S., but Canada, Great Britain, and all the other nations of Western Europe behaved shamefully in the years preceding World War II. Their governments and their people ignored the warning signs, refused to prevent or prepare for the conflict, and ultimately found themselves in a horrible situation almost entirely of their own making.
One of the many minor problems caused by this situation was the need to ignore patent law in order to resist the Nazi regime effectively. Expedience necessitated such actions, but that doesn't make those actions righteous.
And the Taiwanese government, in failing to make its own preparations against the bird flu, and unwilling to pay for preparations made by others, has likewise acted shamefully. It may be necessary, but it's no less shameful for all that.
I don't see how comparing the Taiwanese government's bad behavior to the bad behavior of the allies pre-WWII leads to the conclusion that the Taiwanese government isn't behaving badly. I assume that having considered the two scenarios yourself, you are in full agreement with me.
Roche is a Swiss company. I doubt the Taiwanese citizens have some kind of taxpayer's claim on their work product.
/. editor as showing moral courage on the part of the Taiwanese government. I don't see it that way. Rather, I think it shows moral weakness on the part of the Taiwanese government, that at the moment when their citizens need them most, they have to resort to such shenanigans in order to come through.
You seem to be implying that forcing people to do research is immoral because it's impractical, while stealing work product from people is cheap and easy, and therefore moral (in emergencies).
In reality, I'm willing to admit that in emergencies it's sometimes necessary to make expedient choices, rather than moral choices, and even that expediency can sometime be the moral choice.
But in this particular case, I don't see how it's moral for the Taiwanese government, to fail in its responsibility to provide its citizens with safeguards against the plague, and then exploit the work of someone else in order to make up for their own shortcomings.
The article was framed by the
Nobody seems to like it when George W. Bush uses the weight of government to disrespect international law and to take whatever he wants without paying for it. Why should it be all rainbows and pretty flowers when the Taiwanese government acts the same way?
By now, my point should be clear. This is an important social issue (life != property) that is totally ON TOPIC with the original post regarding Taiwan ignoring patents for the sake of it's citizenry. Let's talk about that and leave the "WE HATE YOU >:-(" for another day.
;)
/. editor as morally correct, and to what I see as an unthinking approval of these actions on moral grounds by many of the commenters on this article. I can see these actions as being expedient perhaps, but morally correct? I'll need a lot more convincing on that score.
Thank you for getting us back on topic
My only point was that the Taiwanese government has an obligation to safeguard its citizens, and that exploiting the work of others--rather than doing their own work to fulfill that obligation, and "stealing" that work rather than paying for it--doesn't seem like the "moral" thing to do.
What I'm opposed to here, more than even Taiwan's actions themselves, is the framing of these actions by the
It's amazing to me that nobody seems to be able to address this point coherently (or even address it all all, really); let alone rebut it.
Care to take a shot at it? It is, after all, what you and I seem to be here to discuss...
He also implied, by placing the question in the context of his message, that the answer to the question why might have something to do with the twisted values expressed by his parent poster... Not that suicide bombers have any less twisted values.
Please explain why you believe my values are twisted, based on my original post (reproduced below for easy reference). Please also explain how a discussion of 9/11 helps us to better understand the morality of Taiwan's approach to discharging its duty to its citizens.
I mean, even the morality of Roche's work is irrelevant to this discussion. My only point is, Taiwan needed the work done, but the Taiwanese government did not invest in any such work. Instead, they waited for someone else to make the investment, and then profited from it at the expense of the investor. And that doesn't really strike me a "moral" choice for a government to make.
==========
Original Post:
You bring up an interesting point. Look at it this way: The Taiwanese government, charged with the protection of their citizens, and taxing them for that very purpose, never saw fit to invest in their own safeguards against plagues like the bird flu. Nor does the Taiwanese government see fit to pay now the cost of such an investment, which Roche made for its own reasons.
So the Taiwanese government won't save its own citizens, and won't pay someone else to save its own citizens, but will gladly steal the results of someone else's work to save its own citizens. Doesn't it seem like Taiwan is behaving badly?
As I explained here, my contention is that the Taiwanese government could set up a non-free market for R&D any time it wanted to, and that Roche, operating in a moderately free market, would outperform such a hypothetical market. More to the point, it outperformed the Taiwanese government's existing R&D market. Also, that the Taiwanese government's capabilities, both real and potential, fell short of the "free(er) market". This contradicts the grandparent's argument that this scenario demonstrates that free markets aren't as efficient as government markets for this sort of thing.
I apologize. I was unclear, and off-topic.
I was thinking about Bayer, and its inability to enforce its patent on Aspirin. The result is that Bayer has to spend a lot of money marketing their brand of Aspirin. This is a huge chunk of their budget that isn't being spent on R&D for new medicines.
I was speculating that if Bayer had been allowed to keep its patent on Aspirin, it wouldn't have to spend so much money on marketing, and could spend more money on R&D.
Thus, my (speculative) conclusion that more robust patent enforcement (and longer patent lifetimes) could result in more new medicines. Not only would it allow pharmaceutical companies to shift more of their budget from marketing to R&D, but because of the profitability of patents properly enforced the incentive to make such a budgetary shift would be much greater.
It's a lot freer than a fully-regulated R&D market set up by the Taiwanese government set up for its own benefit.
My point wasn't that the pharmaceutical market is a perfectly free market. Rather, my point was that the Taiwanese government represents a perfectly (and completely) regulated market. Thus, if government programs were more efficient than the free market, the Taiwanese government should be able to set up its own R&D program, eliminate all free market influences on that program, and beat Roche to the punch.
But as we can see, governments aren't actually more efficient than moderately-free markets for this sort of thing. Q.E.D.
Are you saying that the government of other countries should be denied the same policy choice that the US made in the 1800s?
I don't know enough about the topic to make policy prescriptions. Please refer to my original post to determine exactly what I'm saying: Doesn't it seem like Taiwan is behaving badly?
How does your reply even begin to answer that question? Are you saying "yes, Taiwan appears to be behaving badly, but appearances can be deceiving; here's why their decision is actually righteous"? Or is it "yes, Taiwan is behaving badly... as did America, in times past"? Or is it maybe "Taiwan is doing the right thing... as did America, in times past"?
Also, some supporting evidence might be nice. But an actual argument for that evidence to support would be even nicer.
How does it make me a hypocrite? Have I said anywhere that America's behavior was excusable but Taiwan's was not?
Anyway, what's your point? Do you agree with me, that Taiwan is behaving badly? Are you arguing that America's behavior was also righteous, just as Taiwan's behavior is righteous now?
Or are you just one of those annoying little factoid-goblins, physically allergic to actually thinking seriously about an interesting issue?
My point, in other words, was that even if Roche were deprived of its patent worldwide, there would still be money for them to make by selling the drug in a more open market. Would it cover their R&D costs? I do believe so. Would it cover the money they may have spent advertising their product? Probably not.
And this is why drug companies spend so much more on advertising than on R&D: Because R&D just wastes huge amounts of money on patents they can't enforce, while advertising invests huge amounts of money in selling cheap drugs whose patents they can't enforce. Let them enforce their patents, and they might spend more on R&D...
TO be perfectly honest with you, I would rather see the drug not manufactured than witheld from needy people. Simply put, allowing people to die when we can save easily save them is wrong.
But what about people who have the ability to develop the drug, but choose not to, because they want to avoid this dilemma? Should the government be allowed to force them to do the work anyway? If not, why not? Isn't it the same as stealing their work? Either way, you're forcing them to work for you against their will. Isn't it still a kind of slavery?
And why is it that you would rather punish them for doing work, by stealing it from them? If you care about the people who need this work so much, shouldn't you be the first to call for rewarding those who do the work?
But, isn't this an excellent case where a free market is not the most efficient way to meet the needs of the world
What do you mean? The pharmaceutical company, operating in a free market, has already produced a treatment. The Taiwanese government, which could set up a government-regulated market for research and development any time in wants to, has produced nothing. Now, in the moment of crisis, it's stealing the work of the free market to cover its own responsibilities to its citizens.
It seems plain that the free market was much more efficient in this case. Unless by "efficient", you mean "didn't study for the test and copied somebody else's answers instead". But the word for that is actually "cheating".
Given sufficient money, we can hire a shark in pinstripes to compose an ethical fig leaf for our actions. Failing that, for a little more money, we can just buy some politicians and have a law composed.
Is that what the Taiwanese government is doing, rather than investing in their own treatments for their own citizens? Steal somebody else's work and call it a moral victory?
I believe that Taiwan is doing the right thing, since the manufacturer of the bird flu drugs did not want to sell them the drugs for a price they were able/willing to pay.
You bring up an interesting point. Look at it this way: The Taiwanese government, charged with the protection of their citizens, and taxing them for that very purpose, never saw fit to invest in their own safeguards against plagues like the bird flu. Nor does the Taiwanese government see fit to pay now the cost of such an investment, which Roche made for its own reasons.
So the Taiwanese government won't save its own citizens, and won't pay someone else to save its own citizens, but will gladly steal the results of someone else's work to save its own citizens. Doesn't it seem like Taiwan is behaving badly?
And as long as the perfect continues to be the enemy of the good, situations like this will continue to arise as a natural side effect of human endeavors. In the event, the UK banking system and economy survived more or less intact, so by good fortune if nothing else the solution was "good enough", though clearly not perfect.
The U.S. Navy doesn't really get preoccupied by a land-based peacekeeping operation. Last year we had something like 7 carrier groups in or near the South China Sea. Any attempt by China to take Taiwan would involve moving a massive invasion force past the U.S. Navy, and support an incredibly costly amphibious assault against a modern, mechanized, entrenched defender. This is by far the worst kind of battle an army can face, and while China may well have the manpower to deliver a brute force solution, it's far from clear that they have the sealift capacity to mobilize or support an invasion force of adequate size in the face of U.S. air and sea power in the region.
Putting troops on the ground in China would be completely unecessary. All that is required is to sink their troopships and bomb their landing sites. What is the U.S. Navy doing in Iraq that would make such a task so difficult? And does the Chinese navy or air force even have the numbers, technology, or experience to compete with the U.S. for regional sea and air superiority?
If, as you say, China really were the dominant military power in the region, they would already have forced their will on Taiwan, regardless of whatever feeble forces the U.S. Navy had patrolling off their coast. In reality, the forces the U.S. Navy has patrolling off their coast is a credible deterrent for which they currently have no response. Except, possibly, some form of economic or nuclear blackmail.
But it's obvious they're still just trying to keep their economy healthy. They're still years away from waging open economic warfare. This is another reason why I think an eastward move will be their next step. More real estate for their growing population. Access to resource-rich territories contiguous with their current holdings. No opposition, except for a disorganized and dwindling Russian population. There would be a risk of nuclear conflict, though, which is probably why they haven't moved yet. That, and the upcoming Olypmiad.
It would only turn into a world war if some other nation outside of the region saw a profit in going up against Israel and the U.S. in a nuclear conflict.
It seems more likely to me that it would be a regional war, ended almost immediately when the rest of the world joined forces to slap that shit down.
Although I suppose China could decide that the time was ripe to make a play, exploiting the brief period chaos and confusion. But they could just as easily decide to save themselves for the easier and much more profitable westward expansion into Russia.
The only problem with this scenario is the same problem with the U.N. Human Rights Commission scenario: the worst human rights violators get a vote, and even get a regular turn chairing the thing.
Given that the conventional wisdom seems to be that what is good for the Internet is bad for the current Chinese regime, and what is good for the current Chinese regime is bad for the Internet, giving the current Chinese regime a greater say in the administration of the Internet seems like a step backwards. See also: The French, who have been very vocal and active lately about making the Internet suck even more than usual.
What, exactly, would the U.N. contribute to the Internet, except an increase in bureaucracy, government regulation, and wastage?
Nobody likes the amount of bureaucracy, government regulation, and wastage in the current America-managed Internet. I just don't see how turning it over to the U.N. would be an improvement. I always assumed that people preferred to make problems better, not worse. We should really be advocating less oversight, not more.
Thank you for the stimulating debate. It seems to me that when it comes to the practicalities of the real world, your views are closer to the truth than mine.
My hypothetical questions are interesting to me, but probably not very realistic.
Regarding my sig: Actually, I like organization. I see organization (in reasonable amounts) to be key to the success of any worthwhile endeavor. The sig is a jab at libertarians who seem to think that it's possible to have a well-organized community that doesn't end up looking exactly like a community with a government.
But that's a whole different can of worms, right there.
You must be right, the world doesn't *need* an effective and reliable information infrastructure.
Oh, the world "needs" effective and reliable information infrastructure, alright. And the world *has* effective and reliable information infrastructures.
But this article strongly implies that the Internet is not such an infrastructure (e.g., the lack of guaranteed connectivity between feuding backbone providers). My question is, to the extent that the Internet is not such a (i.e., to the extent that it proves to be ineffecitve and unreliable), so what if it deteriorates?
So far we've been arguing about the Internet's importance and/or stability. But what about the other aspect of the question: what would happen if the Internet turns out to be less stable/effective/reliable in its current form than we thought? My guess is we'll promptly discover that, VOIP notwithstanding, the Internet also isn't as useful as we thought. (More precisely, my guess is we'll find that other implementations of similar networking ideas are even more useful, effective, and reliable, and that the obsolete architectures may or may not be integrated into the new solutions, but will not be overly missed if and when they are abandoned.)
Perhaps it might be more appropriate to compare the Internet to the earliest telephone implementations, rather than to the well-established telco infrastructure of the 1970s.
...
My sense is that the Internet is still in its infancy, and that its future form(s) may well abandon the whole "www.foo" and "routed IP traffic" concepts in favor of something much more advanced, robust, and long-lived.
Also, that it's not clear that the Internet is a "step forward" in the long run, nor that this or that technological experiment or setback is really a "step back".
Also, that while the telco system changes didn't involve many end-user changes (although it did involve the major change of allowing end-users and third parties to manufacture, install, and service their own equipment on the telco infrastructure), that doesn't mean that changes to the Internet must not involve any end-user changes. Perhaps that's the part that will need the most changing?
Also, that while the telco changes didn't involve many overt changes to the routinging protocols, that doesn't mean that the Internet's routing protocols must never change. Nor does it mean that the Internet's routing protocol changes must be backwards-compatible with obsolete routing methods.
Also, that it's not at all clear that being able to type "www.foo" from anywhere and get to where you want to go is truly important, even in the context of the Internet, and therefore so what if it stops working?
Also, that it's not at all clear that anything truly important hinges on the success of the Internet in its current form, and therefore so what if it stops working?
=========
MONKEY: Thanks to routing disputes between Level 1 ISPs, I can't always get routed to the website I desire!
PANTS: So what?
MONKEY: But I could yestreday!
PANTS: So what?
MONKEY: But it was cool!
PANTS: So what?
MONKEY:
PANTS: No, seriously, so what? What is so important about being able to get to your website from anywhere in the world, that we must make sure never to do anything that might jeopardize that? You got by just fine without it the day before yestreday. Why wouldn't you get by just fine without it the day after tomorrow?