Capitalism - The Only Scrip for the Wuhan Virus

Posted by $ mshupe 7 months ago to Philosophy
8 comments | Share | Flag

As Harry Binswanger is saying, "The ethics of self-sacrifice is at work, bigtime. In order to protect fools who would take snake-oil remedies, you and I are legally barred from taking, for instance, Regeneron's antibody treatment. What is that other than the sacrifice of the rational to the irrational?

In regard to the shutdown of the economy, the philosophic factor at work is the denigration of productiveness. This makes people's minds skitter away from even recognizing the fact that our lifestyles and our very survival depend upon production.

A philosophic-political idea at work is: coercion is beneficial. So, curfews are being imposed in many localities. It will be illegal in my area, I've been told, to go out after 11pm. Why? Because force is held to be the solution to all problems. Forget individual judgment about the risks and rewards of going outside: our leaders have a one-size-fits-all solution: "No, you can't."

Environmentalism at its root is fueled by this level of self-hatred. But the popular and governmental reactions to the COVID-19 virus are not driven by self-hatred. It's the taken-for-granted, automatized response of politician and citizen alike.

The first step is to make a demand: the FDA must stop preventing people from taking new medications. Big pharma should need no one's permission to produce and sell promising drugs they think are safe enough.

It's your body and your life. You are not the bureaucrats' serf. Your body is not government property. Your life and your mind are your own---by right.
SOURCE URL: https://www.centerforindividualism.org/chinas-most-impactful-export-is-not-from-wuhan-their-finest-economist-is-from-guanghua/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 months ago
    In reference to the drug addict companies, if they behaved themselves, were more careful, more concerned about after effects, side effects, death...they wouldn't have to worry about profit, and they wouldn't have to lie, snuggle up with government and politicians to make a profit.

    The lefty business model is the only model that doesn't care if they kill off their customers...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 months ago
    Nice article. I did find the following quote more than a little ridiculous, however:

    "The market has never tried to change human nature. Instead, precisely because human nature cannot be changed, the market economy exists, which is also the reason the market economy is necessary: It causes human actions to conform to the requirements of virtue."

    Markets are perpetually trying to change human nature. That's what advertising is. All trade is derived from what one values. If human nature is fixed, so are values. Human actions are encouraged by the market to conform to virtue because it is the most efficient. (I lay this out in my book and compare the society of virtue to the society of vice.) But these feedback mechanisms can not force one to change or adhere to virtue.

    The reason that coercion in government ultimately fails is because it takes so much more effort and knowledge to choose for others what they should do and the level of effort and knowledge required are superhuman. The other funny thing is that the more you learn truth, the more you realize just how absurd it is to aspire to control others. It is only the ignorant and egotistical who seek to control others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 months ago
      Thanks, and I appreciate the comments you offered. As far as markets trying to change human nature, I would say that is very true of certain market participants. In aggregate, efficient markets are too broadly dispersed, vast horizontal structures, with each member having limited information. Of course advertisers can greatly affect behavior in niche markets, at least in the short run, and heavy handed government action in broad market circumstances.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 7 months ago
        "with each member having limited information."

        I cover this in my book as well. Members who are satisfied with limited information will make less beneficial trades for themselves than those with extensive information.
        Those who are knowledgeable are also going to be less susceptible to misleading advertising. Both business partners actually benefit by knowing as much as possible because it encourages a long-term relationship between both which is also more beneficial for both than constantly having to seek out new business partners.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 7 months ago
    I agree 110% The market place will determine what is effective and what is not. It is the individuals responsibility to determine what risks they are willing to take - not the government. Researchers are at the molecular level. Very smart people can and will develop the preventatives and therapies for infectious diseases - if the FDA and other regulatory agencies would step aside.
    For me, I pretty much continue my daily routine. Life does on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 7 months ago
    How can you be prevented from using a drug that does not yet exist? The company has not tested it in human trials yet as far as I know. You should be free to use any drug that you develop or that developed by others when offered by them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 months ago
    The only value the government has in this is to provide unbiased information, not rules. Even then the best provider would be a private company, but they have to remain unbiased.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo