New laws to rule the world - New world order?

I think something could be drafted to benefit everyone, but who has a proposal that would actually be possible.

This occurred to me thinking about the drug companies. Of course a cure is valuable, as a company with a cure, can cure something, charge the crap out of it and no one else gets generics on the market in time if they are fast enough.

But hey!

Maintenance drugs are worth a LOT more money because they are taken everyday. The majority of R&D money goes to the other kind, and anything that's not profitable is overlooked. (By a large majority) So on set of laws must address this kind of thing, if a company invents a cure it gets paid out x% of money that was spent on maintenance, etc.

Not sure exactly if that would work, but knok yourselves out. I think the world needs a new world order. Absolutely nutty how we govern ourselves these days.

reply to post by boncho

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

You seem to be saying that Americans are unable to choose effective leaders, so we should let people from outside of our country choose our leaders, on the grounds that we don't know how to do it, but the people in Belgium, Chile, Africa, China, and Syria do?

I'm afraid we'll get still more ineffective leaders with total, inescapable, control over the world. I don't think I like that picture.

What if the Corporation that benefited from patenting the cure, created the ailment in the first place??

Sad fact of the matter is that most if a company cured the common cold they would release X number of products which claim to "help" it as there is more money in that then curing something out right. When it comes to drug costs over all I'm kind of glad that I was born in the UK where if I need a prescription it will cost me about £7 a month for it. At the same time drug companies in the UK are not making as much as their counterparts in America.

On pharmaceuticals to keep with the topic.

New laws to rule to world...

1. Make Chinese medicine that uses body parts of endangered species globally illegal - including in China. Anyone want a tiger's pizzle to cure your impotence?
2. Ban silly alternative cures which have no evidential effect other than to enrich the quack.
3. Ban witchcraft, which is still around in some parts of Africa!
4. Eliminate some of the most destructive diseases, such as polio with well funder vaccination schemes, like they did with smallpox. Give those who think it does not work a dose of polio so they can experience what it is all about!

On a wider note for new laws to rule the world...

1. Universal adult suffrage. Unacceptable by a great number of countries, starting with China.
2. Free education for girls. That'll go down well in a great number of countries where girls are viewed only as future breeding stock and a burden to boot.
3. Equal rights for women. That'll find deaf ears in a great number of countries where women are certainly second class.
4. Need I go on?

I know that people fear the NWO, but new global laws which include the above can only benefit mankind.

Regards

charles1952
reply to post by boncho

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

You seem to be saying that Americans are unable to choose effective leaders, so we should let people from outside of our country choose our leaders, on the grounds that we don't know how to do it, but the people in Belgium, Chile, Africa, China, and Syria do?

I'm afraid we'll get still more ineffective leaders with total, inescapable, control over the world. I don't think I like that picture.

I'm saying fundamental laws need to be drafted to encapsulate the entire world. So it limits how much one nation can exploit another, and to reach objectives as a human race, not a person on a totem pole.

paraphi
On pharmaceuticals to keep with the topic.

New laws to rule to world...

(....)

On a wider note for new laws to rule the world...

(...)

I know that people fear the NWO, but new global laws which include the above can only benefit mankind.

Regards

Thank you for seeing the intention in this thread and realizing the potential. Remember, at one time people thought the drafting of the US constitution an act of rebellion, and a silly venture.

Who is to say a worldwide constitution couldn't be drafted, one that at minimum would bring prosperity for the human race, (forget regions) for a good long while before being perverted.

boncho

charles1952
reply to post by boncho

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

You seem to be saying that Americans are unable to choose effective leaders, so we should let people from outside of our country choose our leaders, on the grounds that we don't know how to do it, but the people in Belgium, Chile, Africa, China, and Syria do?

I'm afraid we'll get still more ineffective leaders with total, inescapable, control over the world. I don't think I like that picture.

I'm saying fundamental laws need to be drafted to encapsulate the entire world. So it limits how much one nation can exploit another, and to reach objectives as a human race, not a person on a totem pole.

If a nation is willing or already engaging in exploiting another nation...the implementation of a LAW is suddenly supposed to make exploitation seem unappealing to said nation?

What are laws without enforcement? ok...so now with this worldly LAW we need a worldly POLICE...

can I ask how this is simply just not re-creating a larger version of the same problems?

I tend to agree with the statement that you can't fix problems with the same thinking that created them...

can we HONESTLY not come up with something better than laws and police...all over again?

I'm honestly curious here...

Sly1one

boncho

charles1952
reply to post by boncho

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

You seem to be saying that Americans are unable to choose effective leaders, so we should let people from outside of our country choose our leaders, on the grounds that we don't know how to do it, but the people in Belgium, Chile, Africa, China, and Syria do?

I'm afraid we'll get still more ineffective leaders with total, inescapable, control over the world. I don't think I like that picture.

I'm saying fundamental laws need to be drafted to encapsulate the entire world. So it limits how much one nation can exploit another, and to reach objectives as a human race, not a person on a totem pole.

If a nation is willing or already engaging in exploiting another nation...the implementation of a LAW is suddenly supposed to make exploitation seem unappealing to said nation?

What are laws without enforcement? ok...so now with this worldly LAW we need a worldly POLICE...

can I ask how this is simply just not re-creating a larger version of the same problems?

I tend to agree with the statement that you can't fix problems with the same thinking that created them...

can we HONESTLY not come up with something better than laws and police...all over again?

I'm honestly curious here...

You have mistaken what law really is. It's hard I know, in modern times. Law was originally about giving people rights, not about destroying rights.

Global laws should come from people not governments.
The problem seems to be not an agreement on bigger issues such a social structure: God, Laws, Freedom, Property & Rights for example.

Any tabled ID does not spread, they are only liked by either the benefactors or sympathizers.
The fear of change plays a big part in ideas not spreading as well as just plain non agreement.

Non agreement by the people leaves the leaders to push their will.

The real question is what will/does everyone follow?

I understand what everyone is saying, but here are some of the economic realities of developing pharmaceutical cures by a corporation:

- R&D is expensive and time consuming.
- Not every drug works.
- Not all are approved.
- The time to earn a return is artificially limited.

All the time and money sunk into unusable products still has to be paid for, regardless. The labs and scientists do not come free.

The economic realities of developing an effective drug, and that drug being financially viable lead to a couple of uncomfortable truths. Some diseases, ailments or conditions are not worth the time, money and effort to risk the R&D on.

Long term ailments that do not kill the patient are the most desirable from a financial perspective. Conditions like diabetes and epilepsy come to mind. The patient will have to take the medication forever. There is less incentive to spend millions develop drugs for diseases that kill the "customer" relatively quickly. Those that are developed are really expensive as a result.

Limited patent terms mean that the company has a set time to recover costs and earn a return. Generic drugs are more affordable, but they restrict innovation. On the same note, compounds in the public domain like ASA (aspirin) are not subject to significant research to see how else they can be used to benefit people for similar reasons.

Those are a few of the basic realities. It is up to the public to decide if that model works for them or not. The free market works for some things, but maybe not all things. That said, the government usually screws up everything it touches.