Thread: Why is the CURE for cancer surpressed?! Why are we killing people with kemo?!

...so the communists don't have cancer cure plants because..?

Think > Speak.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I mean, two doctors refused to give me medicine for dandruff some years aback. Instead, they told me to use this extra-expensive shampoo, which would alleviate the symptoms.

But the blame is not on doctors, they are just behaving as is expected from them in a competitive, capitalist world

How exactly do doctors benefit from instructing you to buy an expensive shampoo to alleviate your dandruff? Do doctors in Brazil also peddle hair products?

Regardless of whether or not it's a fancy placebo or if big business doesn't care about anything but money, one thing is still clear: it shouldn't have been banned in the first place, and that law needs changed. Besides, who should decide who gets to grow a plant anyway?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

QFT
But the blame is not on doctors, they are just behaving as is expected from them in a competitive, capitalist world - the blame is on capitalism. I cannot emphasize this enough. Take it like this: capitalism + overpopulation = ruin of humans. All the problems in the contemporary world are cause by one of those, or both. Social inequality, hunger, resource exhaustion, pollution, corruption, war, etc.

Next time, think a little before you praise capitalism, all of you brainwashed americans.

Don't let UM see that.

Its not capitalism, its all the restrictions the government put on people, which actually restricts capitalism. Let say for arguments sake that the big drug company doesn't want to make something because its less profitable. Well it would be profitable to someone else to come in and sell it and take the business away from them.

In fact the natural course of capitalism would be for someone else to fill the demand that they are not meeting. So the question really is, why hasn't that happened?

Either no one, any where can make profit from it.(highly unlikely since people would pay anything to cure cancer). It just doesn't work. Or the government is stopping them.

Originally Posted by DuB

How exactly do doctors benefit from instructing you to buy an expensive shampoo to alleviate your dandruff? Do doctors in Brazil also peddle hair products?

What's better for the industry - a cheap drug, or a life-long symptomatic treatment with expensive products? I'm not saying the doctor gains anything from it - that doctor was probably taught that that was the solution to my problem - by the industry, of course.

Yes, it is capitalism. Companies benefit from not having competition, and therefore form alliances (trustes and holdings) which generate monopoly. The state has to intervene against monopoly, otherwise the selfish, money-driven company owners will just explore to population to the bone. All you say in that post was what you were taught by your school, and I say and repeat, american schools have the strongest political propaganda in the world.

Seriously, capitalism is just too far away from being an easy topic. Go study before thinking your are fit for an argument of such level of abstraction. What you learned at school doesn't serve. You have no idea of how ignorant about this topic you are.

Capitalism only exists if there is social inequality. Capitalism maintains and extends social inequality. Capitalism wears out resources and pollutes the ambient. Stop being a parrot and repeating what you were taught. Go read some Marx or Nietzsche or Adorno before thinking you are fit for a discussion over capitalism.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, it is capitalism. Companies benefit from not having competition, and therefore form alliances (trustes and holdings) which generate monopoly. The state has to intervene against monopoly, otherwise the selfish, money-driven company owners will just explore to population to the bone. All you say in that post was what you were taught by your school, and I say and repeat, american schools have the strongest political propaganda in the world.

Seriously, capitalism is just too far away from being an easy topic. Go study before thinking your are fit for an argument of such level of abstraction. What you learned at school doesn't serve. You have no idea of how ignorant about this topic you are.

Capitalism only exists if there is social inequality. Capitalism maintains and extends social inequality. Capitalism wears out resources and pollutes the ambient. Stop being a parrot and repeating what you were taught. Go read some Marx or Nietzsche or Adorno before thinking you are fit for a discussion over capitalism.

Have you ever gone to American public schools? The only propaganda we had was anti-drug and anti-sex propaganda. Perhaps some schools do thrust political propaganda upon its students, but mine didn't so don't generalize.

If not capitalism, what do you suggest? Describe it.

I do know what I am talking about, and your argument is only an excuse to avoid a real discussion on the topic. The fact that you bring up monopolies proves you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

In a totally free market system, there is nothing stopping a person from selling a cure to cancer. Its totally irrelevant if the drugs companies are a monopoly or not, since it was stated they are not in the market to sell it.

The entire argument was that the cure could not be patented, which means the monopoly can't even buy out smaller businesses to gain control of the patent and then withhold it. If it really worked then a infinite number of people could keep coming forward to sell the herbs.

There really is no abstraction or complexities. It simple common sense. There is a huge open market with no competitors who can claim to cure cancer. Any with the cure could come in and make huge profits, and there is nothing any drug company can do to stop them.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Have you ever gone to American public schools? The only propaganda we had was anti-drug and anti-sex propaganda. Perhaps some schools do thrust political propaganda upon its students, but mine didn't so don't generalize.

If not capitalism, what do you suggest? Describe it.

90% of americans I met had the same, biased opinion, and were so ignorant about it they couldn't have formed that opinion on their own. I never generalise - I mean, I'm one of the most exception people myself. I meant american schools on average.

But you just never know when you were taught wrong in your classes about capitalism, so it's really hard to tell.

---

What I suggest? The same Karl Marx did. I'm not gonna develop on it much - just read his book if it really interests you. To make it concise, firstly, a good government, with a good education, which teaches people not to explore one another and not to be corrupt, etc. Once people are well-educated, socialism is the natural consequence. But you probably have a very negative, biased view on socialism, so don't criticise it for the sake of it. Don't do like those creationists that say evolution is wrong because apes don't bear human children.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

But you probably have a very negative, biased view on socialism, so don't criticise it for the sake of it. Don't do like those creationists that say evolution is wrong because apes don't bear human children.

Why can't someone have a negative view on socialism based on real life historical events that show that socialism always seem to leads to totalitarianism instead of what people actually says it should? Or perhaps take real life examples about how socialist programs suck horribly. Welfare, social security, medicare. All horrible programs that waste money and don't work at all. And all socialist.

Originally Posted by Alric

I do know what I am talking about, and your argument is only an excuse to avoid a real discussion on the topic. The fact that you bring up monopolies proves you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

In a totally free market system, there is nothing stopping a person from selling a cure to cancer. Its totally irrelevant if the drugs companies are a monopoly or not, since it was stated they are not in the market to sell it.

The entire argument was that the cure could not be patented, which means the monopoly can't even buy out smaller businesses to gain control of the patent and then withhold it. If it really worked then a infinite number of people could keep coming forward to sell the herbs.

There really is no abstraction or complexities. It simple common sense. There is a huge open market with no competitors who can claim to cure cancer. Any with the cure could come in and make huge profits, and there is nothing any drug company can do to stop them.

Don't be so simplistic, nor so blind to the obvious. Capitalists are money-driven, and if there are no competing companies, it means they can raise their prices and get smelly rich. Therefore, they buy/fuse/hold shares of other companies to reduce competition. You know whom this is prejudicial to? Costumers, or in a more practical view, medium/low class people. The government is just there to prevent the money-driven companies to do whatever their wish out of people. Seriously, if there wasn't government intervention, you'd be working 14 hours a day on an industry, receiving a wage that wouldn't even allow you to buy food, not to mention every product you'd need to buy would have sky-high prices due to monopoly. Exactly like the late 1800s/early 1900s. But you aren't in such situation, thanks to government intervention.

Next time you talk about government intervention, think of that. Some people are still under that situation, in places like Latin America, India, Africa, etc.

The crises of 1929 and 2008 were caused by lack of government intervention. You can't just let people who only seek money do whatever they want, because believe me, they are gonna abuse the situation.

Originally Posted by Alric

Why can't someone have a negative view on socialism based on real life historical events that show that socialism always seem to leads to totalitarianism instead of what people actually says it should? Or perhaps take real life examples about how socialist programs suck horribly. Welfare, social security, medicare. All horrible programs that waste money and don't work at all. And all socialist.

There hasn't been a purely socialist example in history. Don't take Cuba or the soviets as example (although the soviet example is way less bad than you think it is - data and facts were bent before being shown to you).

And look at the US - purely capitalist. If you think your country is in a good situation, then you seriously need to do some research.

Now seriously - go study socialism. If your view is right, studying will only give you more arguments. And if your view is wrong, you'll learn the real thing. It can only be beneficial. But don't use biased sources, like your geography school textbook.

Well answer one question? What is stopping someone from starting their own business and selling the cure for cancer? There is one huge flaw in your argument.

It doesn't matter if the company is evil and corrupt. It doesn't matter if they abuse their workers and only care about money. None of that matters, as it doesn't stop a person from starting their own business.

If I start a privately own company tomorrow and sold a herb that actually cured cancer. There is a single damn thing they could legally do to stop me. How can they stop me? By paying me off? Sure they could do that but the next person who come, and they can't pay everyone off.

The only things they could do to stop me is come threaten and beat me up or destroy my business. Which is clearly illegal. Or own all that specific herb that exists in the entire world, which is highly unlikely.

I know all about socialism. You can't avoid all the bad examples of it, because really they are the perfect examples.

There is no purely socialist countries, because socialism leads to totalitarianism, which then ruins the country and abuses all the socialist rules. Socialism works out great in theory, its the practical application which always turns out horribly.

And no the US isn't purely capitalist. That's just flat out false.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well answer one question? What is stopping someone from starting their own business and selling the cure for cancer? There is one huge flaw in your argument.

It doesn't matter if the company is evil and corrupt. It doesn't matter if they abuse their workers and only care about money. None of that matters, as it doesn't stop a person from starting their own business.

If I start a privately own company tomorrow and sold a herb that actually cured cancer. There is a single damn thing they could legally do to stop me. How can they stop me? By paying me off? Sure they could do that but the next person who come, and they can't pay everyone off.

The only things they could do to stop me is come threaten and beat me up or destroy my business. Which is clearly illegal. Or own all that specific herb that exists in the entire world, which is highly unlikely.

I'm not saying the cure to cancer has been found. I'm saying no company has the interest in finding it.

Now tell me, how can someone who gets 10 dollars per month, working 14 hours at the industry, start his/her own business. Your idea is just pretty much biased, and you refuse to realise it out of laze - it's sweeter to see the world your way. People work 16 hours a day breaking rocks with hammers to get paid 4USD per month in Africa. People die of hunger. Life expectancy is less than 20 years. Not to mention child mortality. And all of that because of rich people who want to get richer by exploring the poor workers.

Also, explored people don't get a decent education, and aren't informed/intelligent enough to start any business, or even vote right for that matter.

Finally, yes, there are things they can do to stop your business. Older and richer companies reduce their prices below yours and make you go bankrupt. Once you're out of the market, they raise their prices again. It's such a common practice, it's almost common sense among businessmen. It's called dumping. Very capitalist act, may I add.

Originally Posted by Alric

I know all about socialism. You can't avoid all the bad examples of it, because really they are the perfect examples.

There is no purely socialist countries, because socialism leads to totalitarianism, which then ruins the country and abuses all the socialist rules. Socialism works out great in theory, its the practical application which always turns out horribly.

And no the US isn't purely capitalist. That's just flat out false.

Where did you study socialism? Answer me that and, depending on your answer, we'll stop discussing now.

Socialism doesn't lead to totalitarianism, but a capitalist country needs to undergo a totalitarian period, otherwise the transition to socialism cannot occur. People don't just wake up and decide "let's be socialist" - you need to teach people the new system. Totalitarian doesn't equal dictatorial, you know. There are a zillion examples of good monarchies/empires in history.

neither purely socalist nor purely free market systems can work. Both of them are too easy to take advantage of, you have to have a mix of the two simply because of human greed. Greed and corruption arise no matter what kind of government or economy you want to make that is why there needs to be some of both to check eachother. And, this is not a fence sitter's position, because this issue is not black and white. We can see it work just fine in Europe and in US's past before big business leaked in to the government.

Tkdyo, I once thought exactly like you. But I moved on to believe that, with a decent enough educational system, you can teach people not to be corrupt. And if they turn out to be corrupt, justice is always there to take care of things. I'm not talking about oppression - much to the contrary, I'm in favour of a very liberal (and not liberalist) government. It just happens that in places like the US (most prominent example), people are taught from young age to be selfish and seek only personal profit. You can't expect people not to be corrupt in those circumstances - doing so will actually only give them a disadvantage.

But what you say is also true. Examples of it? The NL, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden... I've studied them, I've been there, I can say so.

Dumping doesn't work against someone selling a totally unique product. If your not selling a cure for cancer and the other guy is, you can't lower the prices of your drugs to run the other people out of business. The only way to do is it to come up with another product that can cure cancer. And if you come up with a new cancer cure and drop the price extremely low to beat everyone else out, you just did the entire world a huge service and it means everything worked out for us all.

So no, there would be no way to the stop the person in this case. And have you ever noticed all the really super poor countries are the ones with corrupt governments? That's not helping them at all.

As for where I study socialism, I didn't study it any specific place. It's from years and years of learning. There so many sources of information on topics like this every where. Its hard not to learn about this stuff if you are paying any kind of attention at all.

You have it backwards. I am sure you meant, that there are good dictatorships. Not that there are good totalitarian governments, because that is moronic. There is no such thing as a good totalitarianism government.

What you basically describe just now was that our government needs to take over the country and enslave its citizenship then force us into agreeing to covert to socialism against our will. Which is a horrible evil act, and we all know damn well once the government has taken complete control over everyone their not going to give it up.

Originally Posted by Alric

Dumping doesn't work against someone selling a totally unique product. If your not selling a cure for cancer and the other guy is, you can't lower the prices of your drugs to run the other people out of business. The only way to do is it to come up with another product that can cure cancer. And if you come up with a new cancer cure and drop the price extremely low to beat everyone else out, you just did the entire world a huge service and it means everything worked out for us all.

As I said, I don't think the cure to cancer has been found - you are neglecting that point I made. What I said is, the only one capable of finding a cure is the pharmacological industry, and they lack interest in it. That was my original point. You can't just grow the cure to cancer in your backyard, you have to find it first - and finding it costs millions - and once it is found companies will lose the money they get through the current treatments.

So no, there would be no way to the stop the person in this case. And have you ever noticed all the really super poor countries are the ones with corrupt governments? That's not helping them at all.

Yes, corrupt governments - the cause of corruption is capitalism - the governors just want to explore people and take money from them, as capitalism taught thm. Corrupt government means the government doesn't intervene on industries' actions, and therefore open their legs to capitalist exploration. If the government wasn't corrupt, there would be just and fair government intervention, instead of tax reduction, and the companies would be unable to explore workers.

As for where I study socialism, I didn't study it any specific place. It's from years and years of learning. There so many sources of information on topics like this every where. Its hard not to learn about this stuff if you are paying any kind of attention at all.

Which means you have never studied it at all. You were just taught about it at school, or heard about it at the news, which, as I already said, are biased. How many authors have you read on the topic? How much world History do you know? You can't study the French Revolution using only french literature you know, for obvious reasons.

You have it backwards. I am sure you meant, that there are good dictatorships. Not that there are good totalitarian governments, because that is moronic. There is no such thing as a good totalitarianism government.

Nah, you are the one who have it backwards. Study dictatorship in the countries of South America (guess you didn't even know many lat.am. countries went through dictatorship). Dictatorship involves censorship, privileges for few and etc. Totalitarian governments are, for example, the ones there were in Europe during the Modern Era - France, Spain, Portugal, etc etc. And, believe me, Portugal only started the naval exploration and the trade with Indian products because of having a solid totalitarian government before all the others. It lost glory after being annexed to Spain during the period of the Iberic Union, though.

What you basically describe just now was that our government needs to take over the country and enslave its citizenship then force us into agreeing to covert to socialism against our will. Which is a horrible evil act, and we all know damn well once the government has taken complete control over everyone their not going to give it up.

Nah, that's not what I described. What I meant is that, if you teach people not to be corrupt and selfish, socialism will be the natural consequence. Don't bend what I say, that is just lame.

Thats exactly what you just said. You were not talking about teaching you were talking about forcing people to accept it. That is what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is the absolute control of a country by its government. Meaning you have no rights, and the government can do as it pleases. There are no elections(unless rigged), you can't criticize the government, you can't question the government. They could murder you, and you can do nothing about it. Totalitarianism, is evil and horrible.

Its silly that you are talking in such a way. In a captilist republic, like we got a memeber of the government can't directly make any money from abusing workers since the works in no way work for them.

However in a totalitarian socialist government. The government are the owners of the businesses plus they make all the laws. So they can do whatever they please.

There is clearly faulty logic here. Its far easier to be a corrupt politican if politicans also own everything within the country, than if the politican owns nothing at all.

How does giving all the power to the government so that they can run all businesses help? It makes it a thousand time easier for them to abuse the system. Which is why throughout history all the governments work like that, are hugely corrupted.

When one person has all the say where all the money goes, it will mostly go to themself. If its a small group then that small group gets all the money.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats exactly what you just said. You were not talking about teaching you were talking about forcing people to accept it. That is what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is the absolute control of a country by its government. Meaning you have no rights, and the government can do as it pleases. There are no elections(unless rigged), you can't criticize the government, you can't question the government. They could murder you, and you can do nothing about it. Totalitarianism, is evil and horrible.

Its silly that you are talking in such a way. In a captilist republic, like we got a memeber of the government can't directly make any money from abusing workers since the works in no way work for them.

However in a totalitarian socialist government. The government are the owners of the businesses plus they make all the laws. So they can do whatever they please.

There is clearly faulty logic here. Its far easier to be a corrupt politican if politicans also own everything within the country, than if the politican owns nothing at all.

How does giving all the power to the government so that they can run all businesses help? It makes it a thousand time easier for them to abuse the system. Which is why throughout history all the governments work like that, are hugely corrupted.

When one person has all the say where all the money goes, it will mostly go to themself. If its a small group then that small group gets all the money.

Who the heck are you to say what I was talking. I was talking about teaching people, but you can't just expect it to happen in a free-marketed capitalist system. You do not know the difference between totalitarianism and dictatorship. Study dictatorship. People are tortured. People are prosecuted unlawfully. People are silenced. The government gives privileges to companies that over-explore natural resources. The government opens its barriers for international companies to make money as they wish in the country. You clearly know nothing about dictatorship, so shut about it.

You have no idea how corruption happens. Damned rich companies support candidates, giving them billions for their campaign, but expect payback when the candidate wins. Capitalism corrupts the government in order to reduce state intervention, which is beneficial for company owners, but not for costumers and workers. Having a free-market is like giving guns to company owners and making murder legal.

Corruption is the way politicians make money. Seriously, I don't disagree that capitalism would be brilliant if it weren't for the corruption and selfishness. But unfortunately reality is not like that, and human beings are greedy.

You mistake socialism for corruption. The very principle of socialism is that everyone gets the same income. If governors get more, then it's not socialism.

Now seriously - as i said, you have never studied sociology, nor critical geography, nor the history of economic systems. Study before you make up your mind - a wrong opinion could do very bad for your friends, your neighbours, and your nation. That's something I hate about americans - don't even finish high school and think they have all the problems of the world figured out. If capitalism worked, we wouldn't be facing so many social inequalities, criminality, plagues and political persecution as we do today. The situation of the world isn't so make-believe as you were taught. The world pretty much sucks right now.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, corrupt governments - the cause of corruption is capitalism - the governors just want to explore people and take money from them, as capitalism taught thm. Corrupt government means the government doesn't intervene on industries' actions, and therefore open their legs to capitalist exploration. If the government wasn't corrupt, there would be just and fair government intervention, instead of tax reduction, and the companies would be unable to explore workers.

No it's not! The cause of corruption is greed! The cause of greed is money!

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah, you are the one who have it backwards. Study dictatorship in the countries of South America (guess you didn't even know many lat.am. countries went through dictatorship). Dictatorship involves censorship, privileges for few and etc. Totalitarian governments are, for example, the ones there were in Europe during the Modern Era - France, Spain, Portugal, etc etc. And, believe me, Portugal only started the naval exploration and the trade with Indian products because of having a solid totalitarian government before all the others. It lost glory after being annexed to Spain during the period of the Iberic Union, though.

Totalitarianism:
In political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state.

Totalitarianism is means that the government regulates every aspect of its citizen's lives while dictatorship means that anything the ruler says goes. The two can either be intertwined or exist separately. Absolute monarchs are dictators. Stalin was a Totalitarian dictator.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

No it's not! The cause of corruption is greed! The cause of greed is money!

Well, I can think of two replies to your point.

1) The cause of corruption is not money. The cause of corruption is wanting to having more money than others - pursuit of profit, aka capitalism.
2) What would you propose then? Abolishing money? Abolish money and you'll get to communism - congrats!

Totalitarianism:
In political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state.

Totalitarianism is means that the government regulates every aspect of its citizen's lives while dictatorship means that anything the ruler says goes. The two can either be intertwined or exist separately. Absolute monarchs are dictators. Stalin was a Totalitarian dictator.

Yes, Totalitarianism and Dictatorship can intertwine. But it doesn't mean there isn't totalitarianism without dictatorship - it's what happened in the monarchies of the Modern Era. America was only reached and claimed, and the maritime route to India was only found, in the late 1400s, because of the totalitarian monarchies of Portugal and Spain. Totalitarian only means a single person has control of most aspects of the country, as in economy, external politics and etc. Republic means companies can corrupt candidates. Totalitarianism means a single governor (monarch) doesn't have to bother about winning elections, and can focus solely on the well-being of the country. It's not perfect, but it's much more fair and effective than the republic.