In many cases, no. Remember, corporations are people too, my friend, and there are plenty of documented cases of large, powerful corporations using tax evasion techniques not available to us normal folks to literally pay no or even negative taxes (receiving more money in tax breaks than they pay out in taxes.) GE is perhaps the most infamous example, but they are by no means the only one.
I agree, but the real problem is that the highest human needs do not have "lesser" profit potential; they literally have negative profit potential, as they would directly undermine existing revenue streams.
If you need any help imagining the response of existing pharmaceutical companies to a genuine cure for cancer, diabetes, arthritis, or any number of chronic ailments, you need look no farther than the music industry's reaction to file-sharing.
Looking out for yourself is not immoral, in and of itself. However, holding your own self-interest in such high regard that you are willing to knowingly harm others in the pursuit of your own self-interest... that is the very definition of evil in any legitimate system of morality. (And apparently the definition of "virtue" under the barbaric morality of Ayn Rand, which is why reasonable people see Objectivists as an existential threat to everyone around them, on the same level as Scientology.)
The thing is, influenza at its worst kills around 10% of infectees, and those are mainly the weakest of the population: infants, the elderly, and those who are ill already or have weakened immune systems. The vast majority of people who get it make a full recovery very quickly, with no lasting effects. (How many times have you had the flu?)
(And no, I'm deliberately not counting the Spanish Influenza here. That's more of a scare story than anything relevant to the modern age; the horrors it wrought a century ago were due far more to contemporary medical science not knowing how to deal with it than to the disease itself, and another outbreak of the same virus would not have nearly the same effect today.)
Ebola's effects, on the other hand, are positively horrendous, killing between 50% and 90% half of infectees and leaving behind severe lasting effects on those who survive. Yes, it hasn't ever become an epidemic in a highly urbanized nation yet, but all it would take is once...
One of the primary points in favor of banning DDT is that it was no longer working. Even back when Silent Spring came out, it was becoming more and more clear that DDT had lost its effectiveness, because improper application of the pesticide had placed massive, highly effective selective pressure on mosquito populations, causing them to adapt in much the same way as the abuse of antibiotics today is directly responsible for the emergence of multi-antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria.
The problem with DDT isn't just that it's toxic to larger animals such as birds, (but also mammals, including human beings, since it accumulates in tissues,) but that it's toxic to larger animals and does not help against malaria. Not anymore.
Bayer Chief Executive Officer Marijn Dekkers called the compulsory license "essentially theft."
Very well, Mr. Dekkers. I'll grant you that. Then, by applying your exact same line of reasoning, your policy of providing life-saving medicine only to rich folks who can afford it is "essentially murder."
If I have to choose between supporting theft and supporting murder, I'll take the thief's side any day.
You kidding? It's pretty much every scientist's dream. There aren't very many scientists who are household names, but one of them, who pop culture tends to regard as more or less the smartest man who ever lived, was the last guy to find a problem with Newton's laws: Albert Einstein. Who wouldn't want to be remembered in his company?
So the thing I've never understood is, why is it that some lawyers hate the thought of fee shifting? Don't they still get paid either way, regardless of whether it's their client or the person who loses the case doing the paying?
Honig is lying. Tons of major national civil rights organizations have, in fact, endorsed Title II reclassification. But, I guess when you can use totally arbitrary standards like "true" civil rights leaders and "major" civil rights organizations, you can make any claim you want and pretend you're on solid ground.
I just can't help but wonder. Obviously this pledge worked really well in one race in Massachusetts, but if it gets any bigger, how long before corporate donors start to troll the process. Run a few ads in favor of the guy you want to lose, and you could bankrupt their campaign...
What regulatory burden are you talking about? "Treat all traffic equally" is not some huge "burden" to be met. On the contrary, developing technology to violate basic Common Carrier principles is what's expensive; there's a reason why only huge ISPs are doing it!
Sorry, but this argument doesn't pass the laugh test.
You've gotta be kidding. That hasn't been true since Reagan's time, when pro-business fiscal conservatives shoved moral conservatives to the sidelines. Today, Republicans cynically use moral principles to rally the base, but any time it conflicts with the Higher Principle of making money, just watch any but the merest pretense of Christian morality fall by the wayside.
Read what the Bible has to say about usury, moneylending, and debt, then look at the Republican position on the whole banking mess.
Read what the Bible has to say about stewardship and accountability, then look at the Republican positions on the environment and on corporate liability.
Read what the Bible has to say about The Prince of Peace, then look at the Republican position on war.
Anyone who thinks the Republican party does anything more than provide lip service to Christian morality is a propaganda victim, pure and simple.
I agree entirely. The FCC has asked people to weigh in on the proposed Comcast/TWC merger, and what I've been saying is Comcast doesn't need to get any bigger; they're already infamous for abusing their market power and need to be broken up.
Sure, they probably won't listen to me, but if a million people start saying it, then things begin to change.
Any particular reason this article didn't say "this is clearly a SLAPP suit and is likely to be thrown out of court with Peak owning legal fees to Petrick"? It seems like articles like this always mention that. Is this case different in some way?
Heinlein was an unapologetic fascist, and anything he said on the subject of government or politics should be taken with the same high dose of salt that a reasonable person would apply to the writings of Ayn Rand.
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re: Re: Re:
In many cases, no. Remember, corporations are people too, my friend, and there are plenty of documented cases of large, powerful corporations using tax evasion techniques not available to us normal folks to literally pay no or even negative taxes (receiving more money in tax breaks than they pay out in taxes.) GE is perhaps the most infamous example, but they are by no means the only one.
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re: Re: Re:
If you need any help imagining the response of existing pharmaceutical companies to a genuine cure for cancer, diabetes, arthritis, or any number of chronic ailments, you need look no farther than the music industry's reaction to file-sharing.
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re:
(And no, I'm deliberately not counting the Spanish Influenza here. That's more of a scare story than anything relevant to the modern age; the horrors it wrought a century ago were due far more to contemporary medical science not knowing how to deal with it than to the disease itself, and another outbreak of the same virus would not have nearly the same effect today.)
Ebola's effects, on the other hand, are positively horrendous, killing between 50% and 90% half of infectees and leaving behind severe lasting effects on those who survive. Yes, it hasn't ever become an epidemic in a highly urbanized nation yet, but all it would take is once...
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re:
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Re:
One of the primary points in favor of banning DDT is that it was no longer working. Even back when Silent Spring came out, it was becoming more and more clear that DDT had lost its effectiveness, because improper application of the pesticide had placed massive, highly effective selective pressure on mosquito populations, causing them to adapt in much the same way as the abuse of antibiotics today is directly responsible for the emergence of multi-antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria.
The problem with DDT isn't just that it's toxic to larger animals such as birds, (but also mammals, including human beings, since it accumulates in tissues,) but that it's toxic to larger animals and does not help against malaria. Not anymore.
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
Very well, Mr. Dekkers. I'll grant you that. Then, by applying your exact same line of reasoning, your policy of providing life-saving medicine only to rich folks who can afford it is "essentially murder."
If I have to choose between supporting theft and supporting murder, I'll take the thief's side any day.
On the post: DailyDirt: I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain...
Re: Re: Re: Re: And?
On the post: DailyDirt: I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain...
Re: Re: And?
On the post: Appeals Court Uses Bogus Sherlock Holmes Case To Slam Copyright Trolling For License Fees, Suggests Antitrust Violations
On the post: Copyright Office Rejected My Attempt To Copyright A Tweet
On the post: Minority Astroturf Group Gets Comcast-Affiliated News Site To Remove Article About Minority Astroturfing On Net Neutrality
No True Black Scotsman?
On the post: Peak Internet Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Former Customer Who Complained About Its Lousy Connection Speeds
Re: "Techdirt signal"
On the post: Another SuperPAC Trying Another Approach To Getting 'Dark' Money Out Of Politics
On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible
Re: Title II and Small Business
Sorry, but this argument doesn't pass the laugh test.
On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible
Re: opinion only
Read what the Bible has to say about usury, moneylending, and debt, then look at the Republican position on the whole banking mess.
Read what the Bible has to say about stewardship and accountability, then look at the Republican positions on the environment and on corporate liability.
Read what the Bible has to say about The Prince of Peace, then look at the Republican position on war.
Anyone who thinks the Republican party does anything more than provide lip service to Christian morality is a propaganda victim, pure and simple.
On the post: Behind The Veil: Comcast Techs Detail How Customer Service Is Really All Just 'Sales'
Re: Re:
Sure, they probably won't listen to me, but if a million people start saying it, then things begin to change.
On the post: ISP Sues Former Customer Over Reviews Claiming His Internet Speed Was Less Than A Third Of What Was Advertised
On the post: DC Circuit Court Tells District Officials They Can No Longer Hide From FOIA Requests By Using Personal Email Accounts
Re:
Next >>