Larry Blanchard wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Correct. Moreover, historically the definition of "good" has be
variable enough to the point where it enabled tribal murder,
cannibalism, genocide, and all other manner of alleged "survival
behaviors".


I didn't say "what is good for my particular tribe." I said what is
good for the species. What various societies think is good for them
(often to the detriment of other groups) has no bearing on the matter.

Astonishing. Just who, other than perhaps yourself, do you think
is wise enough to determine what is good for an entire *species*?
As a matter of Real Politk, the self-anoined saviors of mankind
who wish to enslave everyone else to their vision of what "good"
looks like, are only too happy to appoint *themselves* in this
role.



The only policy for bounding public collective action that has
consistently demonstrated its ability to both promote long-term
societal survival AND minimized offense to individuals has been the
rule I cited a while back in this thread: We act collectively only to
promote/preserve personal liberty. Everything else is a private
matter.


OK Tim, you're always defending minimal government intervention so I
suppose you think of market forces as a good thing. Several news

They may- or may not be a "good" thing by some measure of "good".
They do not, for example, cause *perfect* results by any definition of
"good". They are simply *better* than appointing the few to manage
the interests of the many and trusting that the few will be wise,
virtuous, hororable, and incorruptible enough to do so for the long
term. No, markets are not always "good", but unless corrupted
(which is "fraud" - a legitimate venue for government action), they
are filled with *voluntary* participants, not slaves working under
threat of force.

articles in the last few days have pointed out that nobody wants to
make vaccines because the profits are too low. If that's the result of
"capitalism" you can shove it where the sun don't shine.

As always, an erudite observation. An incoherent one too. If
profits are "too low" it means one of two things (or perhaps both):

a) There is a free market for vaccines, and the demand is insufficient
relative to the supply. Price is always a measure of relative
scarcity in market systems.

b) Third-party force (usually government) is being brought to bear
to limit the profit potential for the good or service in question.
For example, when the Drooling Do-Gooders (DDG) see the Big Eeeeevvviiiil
Phara Corp (BEPC) invent a new wonder drug (having spent nearly $1 Billion
to get there in many cases), the DDGs scream "gouging" when
BEPC prices their product at point that makes sense to them
economically. Then the DDGs engage the Political Looters (PL)
to write laws to *forcefully* contrain the price of the good in
question so that Suzie Soccermom can get said wonder drug at
a price she can "afford". This scenario is repeated regularly
in energy, healthcare, and the like. This strategy of profit
containment is an economically degenerate (in the mathematical
sense of the word) scheme that leads to shortages and companies
exiting markets entirely because its simply not worth the
aggravation. This is not some concoted theory on my part,
it is a regularly demonstrable example of Econ 101.


And I note that our current president, an economic conservative if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You too should join the road cast of The Wizard Of Oz for your
attachments to strawmen. W is lot's of things, but an economic
conservative isn't one of them. He has it half right - cutting taxes -
but he and the rest of the PLs in government never met an absurd
spending initiative he didn't love. Between "Drugs For Aging Hippies Who
Never Saved A Dime For Old Age" and "Let's Rebuild Cities Built Below
Sea Level Even Though People Should Have Known Better", he and the rest
of PLs seem determined to bankrupt the nation.


there ever was one (at least in public) is trying to convince
manufacturers to change their ways and produce more vaccines.

Those manufacturers will do so once there is a profit to be had
there again - or at the point of the government gun forcing them
to do it.

In actual fact, every good material thing you own comes from
the idea that someone, somewhere had a profit motive to its
making. Denying them that profit, similarly denies them the
incentive to pursue its creation - er, I mean evolution -
in the first place or on an ongoing basis.


Sidepoint:

The absence of vaccines might potentially lead to the deaths of
the "least fit" which is, of course, evolutionarily appropriate as I
understand the theory. In fact, people who espouse a purely mechanical
universe have no moral basis for objecting to this sort of thing. If the
universe is mechanical, and evolution all encompassing in its
explanation of how things work, then a few hundred million dead here or
there by natural processes ought to be of no particular *moral* concern
(though it certainly would be one of personal concern if you or someone
you care about is one of the victims).



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/