• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Right-Libertarians Still Defend Big Corp. After Mylan

Geoist

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
35,070
Reaction score
26,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So a little over a week ago, Nick Gillespie of Reason posted an article on the EpiPen. Gillespie makes some points about how current regulations allow companies like Mylan to price-gouge. I happen to agree there. Yet, in typical right(vulgar)-libertarian fashion, he proceeds to praise and defend Mylan:

“Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages.”

^Ummm, WHAT?!

These guys are so predictable with their talking points it is impossible not to laugh. Taking advantage of a political system to price gouge your customers is not taking advantage of your customers? Ooookaaayyy.

Forget the fact Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch sought out the aide of the government to secure the monopoly. Nope, the only wrongdoers here is the government. I guess it doesn't take two to tango.

Kevin Carson eviscerates Gillespie's article here.
 
Geoist said:
So a little over a week ago, Nick Gillespie of Reason posted an article on the EpiPen. Gillespie makes some points about how current regulations allow companies like Mylan to price-gouge. I happen to agree there. Yet, in typical right(vulgar)-libertarian fashion, he proceeds to praise and defend Mylan:

“Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages.”

^Ummm, WHAT?!

These guys are so predictable with their talking points it is impossible not to laugh. Taking advantage of a political system to price gouge your customers is not taking advantage of your customers? Ooookaaayyy.

Forget the fact Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch sought out the aide of the government to secure the monopoly. Nope, the only wrongdoers here is the government. I guess it doesn't take two to tango.

Kevin Carson eviscerates Gillespie's article here.
Click to expand...
:cool:
 
Geoist said:
So a little over a week ago, Nick Gillespie of Reason posted an article on the EpiPen. Gillespie makes some points about how current regulations allow companies like Mylan to price-gouge. I happen to agree there. Yet, in typical right(vulgar)-libertarian fashion, he proceeds to praise and defend Mylan:

“Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages.”

^Ummm, WHAT?!

These guys are so predictable with their talking points it is impossible not to laugh. Taking advantage of a political system to price gouge your customers is not taking advantage of your customers? Ooookaaayyy.

Forget the fact Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch sought out the aide of the government to secure the monopoly. Nope, the only wrongdoers here is the government. I guess it doesn't take two to tango.

Kevin Carson eviscerates Gillespie's article here.
Click to expand...

I've discussed the absurdity of right libertarians positions elsewhere on this forum (e.g. here)). But yes, I'm in 100% agreement, their positions cannot be taken seriously in totality. There's simply too much ideological baggage that's taken on board without inspection.
 
What would have happened if the government didn't ensure the monopoly?
 
Henrin said:
What would have happened if the government didn't ensure the monopoly?
Click to expand...

It's far more than just a discussion about monopolies, that just focuses on the freedom from coercion of the consumer (Which is important, but hardly the sole consideration). There's also the question of private companies/corporations being little more than privately-owned, centrally-controlled authoritarian institutions. Right libertarianism fails to deal with the coercion of unaccountable private institutions, whether they're creating monopolies to screw over employees or coercing the government to act in their favor or whether they're just outright abusing the liberties of their workers (e.g. the Ludlow Massacre or the Battle of Blair Mountain).
 
Big business, big government, pretty much anything operated and controlled by "big" interests (like massive hyper-ordered billion-dollar backroom organizations usually structured like the mega-banks and mega-corporations of Wall Street) is subject to massive corruption due to the massive amount they can get away with due to their ability to essentially game the entire multi-state capitalist system with raw economic power alone.
 
FieldTheorist said:
It's far more than just a discussion about monopolies, that just focuses on the freedom from coercion of the consumer (Which is important, but hardly the sole consideration). There's also the question of private companies/corporations being little more than privately-owned, centrally-controlled authoritarian institutions. Right libertarianism fails to deal with the coercion of unaccountable private institutions, whether they're creating monopolies to screw over employees or coercing the government to act in their favor or whether they're just outright abusing the liberties of their workers (e.g. the Ludlow Massacre or the Battle of Blair Mountain).
Click to expand...

Right libertarianism wouldn't allow the Federal Government and the FDA to give sole production ability on a product paid for by DoD (Mark I NAAK) and a generic drug.
 
austrianecon said:
Right libertarianism wouldn't allow the Federal Government and the FDA to give sole production ability on a product paid for by DoD (Mark I NAAK) and a generic drug.
Click to expand...

The problem with right libertarianism of this strain is that the drugs wouldn't exist in the first place --but setting that aside, corporations would never allow (and are currently squashing) any effort to make government smaller. If you have a unregulated market in the form that right-wing libertarians want, then there will be massive build-ups of private capital and you have any form of a government that controls currency, maintains a military, or has any kinds of contracts, there will exist obvious incentives for those amalgamations of private capital to bribe, bully, or manipulate their way into getting more power. And that means that means, among other things, intentionally making the government more corrupt.

Again, the hypocrisy of right libertarianism couldn't be better summarized than nothing that two of the earliest adherents and founding members of the Cato Institute, the Koch Brothers, are the poster children for corrupt Big Business manipulating the government to become more corrupt, less democratic, and to increase the pay-outs to themselves --all while decrying this for everyone else. Right libertarianism at this point is practically just another branch of their propaganda-wing, where the propaganda is designed to keep them in power, to their oil pipelines flowing, and keeping their contribution to society as a minimal as possible. (It's also noteworthy because they fund all of the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-all-of-the-social-issues-libertarians-allegedly-support, so at what point do you admit that your belief system was manufactured for maximum consent to corporate power?)
 
Right-libertarianism is a scourge on American society in general.
 
FieldTheorist said:
The problem with right libertarianism of this strain is that the drugs wouldn't exist in the first place --but setting that aside, corporations would never allow (and are currently squashing) any effort to make government smaller. If you have a unregulated market in the form that right-wing libertarians want, then there will be massive build-ups of private capital and you have any form of a government that controls currency, maintains a military, or has any kinds of contracts, there will exist obvious incentives for those amalgamations of private capital to bribe, bully, or manipulate their way into getting more power. And that means that means, among other things, intentionally making the government more corrupt.
Click to expand...
You mean like what happens now.

Again, the hypocrisy of right libertarianism couldn't be better summarized than nothing that two of the earliest adherents and founding members of the Cato Institute, the Koch Brothers, are the poster children for corrupt Big Business manipulating the government to become more corrupt, less democratic, and to increase the pay-outs to themselves --all while decrying this for everyone else. Right libertarianism at this point is practically just another branch of their propaganda-wing, where the propaganda is designed to keep them in power, to their oil pipelines flowing, and keeping their contribution to society as a minimal as possible. (It's also noteworthy because they fund all of the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-all-of-the-social-issues-libertarians-allegedly-support, so at what point do you admit that your belief system was manufactured for maximum consent to corporate power?)
Click to expand...
How is a libertarian supposed to behave in our current (non-libertarian) system? I am a libertarian, I run a business, I oppose the sort of state power and laws and regulations that exist, yet have no power to change them. So I am forced to live within the system that exists and play by its rules. Don't condemn me because I am good at it.
 
Henrin said:
What would have happened if the government didn't ensure the monopoly?
Click to expand...

If a child kicked and screamed until the mother bought some candy, would you applaud the actions of the child?
 
Fletch said:
How is a libertarian supposed to behave in our current (non-libertarian) system? I am a libertarian, I run a business, I oppose the sort of state power and laws and regulations that exist, yet have no power to change them. So I am forced to live within the system that exists and play by its rules. Don't condemn me because I am good at it.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are all forced to work within the corrupt system. It still doesn't stop many libertarians from criticizing politicians who compromise on legislation but give a pass to corporate lobbyists who work to manipulate the system.
 
Fletch said:
You mean like what happens now.
Click to expand...

Yes, like really-existing capitalism.

How is a libertarian supposed to behave in our current (non-libertarian) system? I am a libertarian, I run a business, I oppose the sort of state power and laws and regulations that exist, yet have no power to change them. So I am forced to live within the system that exists and play by its rules. Don't condemn me because I am good at it.
Click to expand...

You seem to make the same bizarre mistake that most small business owners do. If you are a small business owner, then you don't really have much power over the system. And yet, there are people, the truly wealthy, the truly powerful, the truly affluent who do make the rules together --the CEO's of Fortunate 500's, major bankers and financial sector managers, oil industry owners (Again, the Koch bro's are a wonderful example), and so on. These people have real power and serious money and clout. The only thing that they would agree with you on is that they're "playing" the game (which at their level means playing the government, putting money in the right hands, stopping the right protestors, buying the right media companies or putting on the right advertisements, etc) and they don't want you to "condemn" them for "being good at it."

Again, let's take the Koch bros. They may be sincere, genuine right-wing libertarians, I don't know, but if they really are that's even worse for your point. That means that they believe the same things that you believe, and don't like regulations, big government hand outs, and big government --but given the nature of really-existing capitalism, they have no choice. So that means they're going to dump 900 million dollars into every presidential election cycle to make sure that they keep their 8 billion dollar-a-year oil subsidies and keep using the military in a way that benefits their oil interests, they'll spend 100 million dollars over the past decade to fight against climate science, they'll grease Fox News' hands to put out the news they like, they'll spend 100's of millions of dollars on dark money for conservative (not libertarian, conservative) ads, for instance they'll put out money fighting against civil liberties, etc. So you're sort of making my point for me --yes, in really-existing capitalism (i.e. libertarianism) the only thing that happens is you increase the power of private interests, and they make government bigger. Why? Because it's in their interests, and they're the only major players in town. After all, the top 1% of wage earners now own 90% of the country's wealth. So they're going to keep on milking that cow, independent of their own personal ideology, because that's what's good for them. It goes back to my previous post --class interest is real. If you have power, and someone says you can go against your ideology slightly in order to get more power, 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times, they'll take that deal. And that's where really-existing capitalism leads: Perpetual corruption, because it's always in someone's interest for the government to be corrupt.
 
Libertarians will often condemn the existing aspects of state power and interference in the market but then leap to the defense of those who benefit from the existing order in the same breath. Conservatives are generally far worse on this front than libertarians but both groups shy from committing anything which smells like class warfare.
https://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-f...y-vulgar-libertarianism-what-is-conflationism
 
Geoist said:
Yes, we are all forced to work within the corrupt system. It still doesn't stop many libertarians from criticizing politicians who compromise on legislation but give a pass to corporate lobbyists who work to manipulate the system.
Click to expand...

This. This especially.
 
Geoist said:
So a little over a week ago, Nick Gillespie of Reason posted an article on the EpiPen. Gillespie makes some points about how current regulations allow companies like Mylan to price-gouge. I happen to agree there. Yet, in typical right(vulgar)-libertarian fashion, he proceeds to praise and defend Mylan:

“Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages.”

^Ummm, WHAT?!

These guys are so predictable with their talking points it is impossible not to laugh. Taking advantage of a political system to price gouge your customers is not taking advantage of your customers? Ooookaaayyy.

Forget the fact Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch sought out the aide of the government to secure the monopoly. Nope, the only wrongdoers here is the government. I guess it doesn't take two to tango.

Kevin Carson eviscerates Gillespie's article here.
Click to expand...

Gillespe is right- it was the FDA who is stymieing competitors from getting into the market and lowering the price for these self injectors. Even Carson's article admits that Epipen has been enabled by government regulators- it's right on the first sentence.
 
Geoist said:
If a child kicked and screamed until the mother bought some candy, would you applaud the actions of the child?
Click to expand...

You mean like Obama and Pelosi did when they were street pimpin' the ACA?
 
Geoist said:
If a child kicked and screamed until the mother bought some candy, would you applaud the actions of the child?
Click to expand...

Everyone in our current system demands special treatment from government. Condemning one group for getting personal favors, while supporting other groups doing it is never going to be a successful strategy. The government needs to stop giving people personal favors at other peoples expense no matter who it might be.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Yes, like really-existing capitalism.



You seem to make the same bizarre mistake that most small business owners do. If you are a small business owner, then you don't really have much power over the system. And yet, there are people, the truly wealthy, the truly powerful, the truly affluent who do make the rules together --the CEO's of Fortunate 500's, major bankers and financial sector managers, oil industry owners (Again, the Koch bro's are a wonderful example), and so on. These people have real power and serious money and clout. The only thing that they would agree with you on is that they're "playing" the game (which at their level means playing the government, putting money in the right hands, stopping the right protestors, buying the right media companies or putting on the right advertisements, etc) and they don't want you to "condemn" them for "being good at it."

Again, let's take the Koch bros. They may be sincere, genuine right-wing libertarians, I don't know, but if they really are that's even worse for your point. That means that they believe the same things that you believe, and don't like regulations, big government hand outs, and big government --but given the nature of really-existing capitalism, they have no choice. So that means they're going to dump 900 million dollars into every presidential election cycle to make sure that they keep their 8 billion dollar-a-year oil subsidies and keep using the military in a way that benefits their oil interests, they'll spend 100 million dollars over the past decade to fight against climate science, they'll grease Fox News' hands to put out the news they like, they'll spend 100's of millions of dollars on dark money for conservative (not libertarian, conservative) ads, for instance they'll put out money fighting against civil liberties, etc. So you're sort of making my point for me --yes, in really-existing capitalism (i.e. libertarianism) the only thing that happens is you increase the power of private interests, and they make government bigger. Why? Because it's in their interests, and they're the only major players in town. After all, the top 1% of wage earners now own 90% of the country's wealth. So they're going to keep on milking that cow, independent of their own personal ideology, because that's what's good for them. It goes back to my previous post --class interest is real. If you have power, and someone says you can go against your ideology slightly in order to get more power, 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times, they'll take that deal. And that's where really-existing capitalism leads: Perpetual corruption, because it's always in someone's interest for the government to be corrupt.
Click to expand...

First of all, I have no idea whether or not the Kochs are libertarians or just modern day conservatives. But what I do know is that libertarians oppose the sort of government structure that allows the Kochs to buy the sort of power and influence that you describe and decry. What you hate, and wrongly blame on advocates of liberty, is the product of the system that YOU desire and defend. You are the defender of the big, powerful, favor dispensing state, not me. You created the monster, don't blame others for your mistakes.
 
Fletch said:
First of all, I have no idea whether or not the Kochs are libertarians or just modern day conservatives.
Click to expand...

I think that like conservatives and liberals, libertarians are all neoliberal capitalists (although they're particularly strong adherents of it) who all say one thing as a justification for what their actions, and then contradict that when it suits them and stick to it when it helps. The key thing is that they'll do whatever helps them, and if you're the owner of a multi-billion dollar enterprise, then sooner or later that will mean coercing the public large, whether it's through government force or through private force (i.e. just read upon the history of the Pinkertons).

But what I do know is that libertarians oppose the sort of government structure that allows the Kochs to buy the sort of power and influence that you describe and decry. What you hate, and wrongly blame on advocates of liberty, is the product of the system that YOU desire and defend. You are the defender of the big, powerful, favor dispensing state, not me. You created the monster, don't blame others for your mistakes.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what my beliefs are, so that attenuates the blow you're attempting to land against me. Again, we've never talked about any of these issues (to my recollection) before, so it's pretty tedious that you're going to start blaming my ideology without even knowing what it is in the first place. I'm a left libertarian, so, no I'm not necessarily in favor a of a big, powerful, dispensing state, but I am a pretty large fan of democratic institutions. I think the state can naturally do certain things better than the private sector, but by no means does that imply that I am in favor of an effectively corporate/privately-controlled government nor does that say very much about the government I'd prefer we had.

Getting back to the issues, we both agree on the fact that governments should be democratic and should not cater to the whims of big business, but we disagree over a crucial element of the corruption: I believe and understand that allowing huge concentrations of private, unaccountable wealth and capital will invariably lead to a huge, unaccountable government (and also coercive private organizations).
 
Last edited:
Abbazorkzog said:
Big business, big government, pretty much anything operated and controlled by "big" interests (like massive hyper-ordered billion-dollar backroom organizations usually structured like the mega-banks and mega-corporations of Wall Street) is subject to massive corruption due to the massive amount they can get away with due to their ability to essentially game the entire multi-state capitalist system with raw economic power alone.
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem is the consolidation of power. Whether that power is governmental or economic the effect is the same: the People are subjugated to the whims and interest of those with the power.
 
PoS said:
Gillespe is right- it was the FDA who is stymieing competitors from getting into the market and lowering the price for these self injectors.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the action was egged on by Mylan.


Even Carson's article admits that Epipen has been enabled by government regulators- it's right on the first sentence.
Click to expand...

Yup, and as I mentioned in sentences two and three of my op I agreed with Gillespie. After that, he goes all right conflationist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom