|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alex Sloat on Friday, March 21 2003 @ 01:39 AM CST |
A few changes to international patent laws
Read "stealing from drug companies". Really, if they're not going to get compensation for products they produce, then you can safely expect to never see a new drug again. And some of these "few changes" have already been made. For example, there was an agreement made whereby a third world country could break patents on a drug in case of a medical emergency. Unfortunately, it is the country that decides what is an "emergency", so one country(Egypt IIRC) recently declared a medical epidemic of impotence and broke the Viagra patent. Such fun things happen when you don't respect property rights, no?
a few changes to the US's policy on funding family planning organisations
While I may disagree with Bush on this one, I don't think that's the biggest problem the African AIDS-afflicted are facing. Really, the biggest problem is the governments in place. Several African governments facing AIDS afflictions not only refuse to acknowledge that fact, but also punish doctors who actually diagnose their patients as having AIDS. And then people wonder why it's not getting dealt with.
Not to mention all the other diseases out their for which their are effective treatments or vaccinations, which are expensive only because of restrictive regulations
Should these be dealt with? Yes. Hell, most of the worst diseases don't even have expensive medication, it's something like $20 for a tuberculosis or malaria vaccination. The problems are, of course, that there's not the appropriate infrastructure in place to vaccinate people, and that not enough work is being put into it. I think money put there would be very well spent, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening. It's too bad really.
Whether people are being killed by someone or dying because the way to prevent their dying is being blocked by someone doesn't change the fact that people are dying, and it can be prevented. If you make the sanctity of human life a central tenet of your ethics, then you have little choice but to admit that the American policies surrounding HIV/AIDS (and farm subsidies) are just plain wrong
No, the sanctity of human rights is central to my ethics. And of course the right to life is on that list, it's at the top of the list, but it is not the whole list. You can't just ignore one person's rights to try and restore those of another. Two wrongs don't make a right, and denying me of my rights to help someone else, while maybe noble-mninded, is anything but noble. I will gladly help, but you don't have the right to force me to help. I will consider not helping someone when you have the ability to be morally wrong, but it's not my place to enforce my morals on others, and it's not my place to ask the government to enforce my morals by taking money off the public. And I'm not sure where aghricultural subsudies come into this.
I'm actually interested in what you think of Dumbya's oh-so-libertarian refusal to stop agricultural subsidies in the US
I think it's rather sad that he feels he needs to keep them in place, although I can definately understand why he does. Firstly, the French are doing a remarkable job of whoring the EU into a farm subsudy group, and it's not like that's going to stop soon. Secondly, I doubt it would be a wise political move to piss off so many farmers by cutting the subsudies. Even if they don't actually help farmers, I doubt they would actually appreciate not getting cheques anymore. I think that farm subsudies are remarkably stupid and that he should work towards eliminating them(as should all other heads of government who subsudize their farmers), but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
And yes, Saddam is a genocidal tyrant. Which is a good argument that he shouldn't be in power, but it's not a good argument that the US should unilaterally remove him. If that's their basis, than they're being hypocritical as all hell, and they're committing themselves to removing the leaders of at least twenty other countries world-wide, a commitment they won't follow up on
Okay, first off, it's not unilateral. uwstudent.org/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20030306200019000&title=On+unilateralism+%28Alex+Sloat%29&type=article&order=ASC&cid=17545>I've been over this before. And yes, I do advocate the removal of those twenty governments. I realize that the US probably won't follow through on it, but I would love to see it happen, and it is what I think they should do. But one question - do you prefer them eliminating one tyrant or none? Is it better to eliminate Saddam and none of the rest, or is it better to leave him in there too? I personally think liberating one country is better than liberating none, just like liberating 20 is better than liberating one. But you can't complain that "Oh we, can't start because then we'd have to finish", because if you acknowledge that finishing is a worthy goal, then you are agreeing that the steps that get you there are also worthy goals(While that isn't always the case, I think it is here). Hypocracy is not the worst crime around, and to complain that they're only going to do some good as opposed to all they can, and that doing nothing is better than doing some good, is just silly.
Yes, I dodged the IP question. Once I think of a satisfactory answer(and have time to write it up), I'll get back to it.
---
Socalism is a first-approximation discipline.
Linear approximations don't do well in the warped world of politics.[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
