We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2116
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS the subsidization of any industry leads to innefficiencies in the industry, higher prices to the consumer, less original development of new product, and increased avenues of government control and corruption, AND the Pharmacutical industry in our great land has the potential of being one of the best in the world, thereby increasing our favorable balance of trade and bringing in increasing amounts of hard foreign currency, THEREFORE we of the RLP propose allowing the invisible hand to direct our research and pricing strategies, not the all too visible hand of the bueraucrats. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The research and development of pharmaceutical drugs.
Old value:: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs and regulates their prices.
Current: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs and regulates their prices.
Proposed: The government neither subsidizes research and development of drugs nor regulates their prices.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:06:56, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | hmmm, our new libertarian wing is sympathetic, however we feel that the government must contribute to technical advances in medicene etc |
| Date | 22:35:41, September 22, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | The best way for the government to contribute to technical advances in any field is to get out of the way of the technicians. |
| Date | 00:22:04, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | They are not in the way. They are merely providing funding to what they deem worthy projects. If we want increased originality, we merely subsidize original drugs which show potential. Current legislation allows the government to ensure that rather than attempting to produce current rememdies for lower prices or in larger batches, pharmaseutical industries are encouraged to come up with NEW treatments which they would not normally spend money developing because of the risk factor. It is economically foolish to take a risk on a totally new drug when an existing one can be altered for twice the profit and much less risk of faliure, far fewer extensive trials. While this legislation might be good for the economy, it would not be at all good for inventiveness, and therefore for the patients of our country. |
| Date | 14:38:13, September 23, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | LPE: You have struck the heart of the matter, with your comment that they are providing funding to what they deem worthy projects. Let the marketplace decide what projects are worthy, not the bureaucrats. |
| Date | 18:56:54, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | But what the market deems worthy is what makes the most profit. If the beaurocrats are doing their job right, what they deem worthy will be what helps the most people. I know which I prefer. |
| Date | 20:37:51, September 23, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | It is not in the nature of bureaucracy to support radical change. Can you imagine John Flemming going to a government board and saying something like "Look, I want to try scraping the mold off this bread and see what it will kill. Can I have some cash?" Most likely result, he is either thrown out on his ear or arrested for violating safety regulations, leaving moldy bread around where someone might eat it. |
| Date | 22:10:13, September 23, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | On to a vote |
| Date | 05:33:16, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | The AAP must oppose, because this is health-care, which could be seen as the AAP flag-issue. We cannot support the removal of price-regulation when human LIVES are on the line. |
| Date | 23:24:05, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | "Can you imagine John Flemming going to a government board and saying something like "Look, I want to try scraping the mold off this bread and see what it will kill. Can I have some cash?" " but can you imagine him going to a major company and doing the same? he wouldnt even be let in the door, but dismissed as a tramp off to feed the ducks. Nowadays the industry is totally controlled by the big businesses, there is no chance for individual small businessmen, no matter how good their idea. And company bosses are even LESS likely to support radical new treatments than government beaurocrats. |
| Date | 23:33:52, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmacuticals |
| Message | More wise words from the LPE. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 179 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 96 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically |
| Random quote: "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together, and if we are to live together we have to talk." - Eleanor Roosevelt |