The Predictables

Warning: This post is basically a long list of incoherent thoughts with no real conclusions.

Being predictable in politics is a two-edged sword with pros and cons. A pro is that being predictable usually means being consistent with oneself. The socialist is more or less always against privatization, liberalization and deregulation and is therefore both predictable and consistent with himself and his political ideology. The libertarian is more or less always against nationalization, authoritarianism and State-enforced discrimination and therefore has the same traits. A con is that the very predictable one isn't as exciting in elections - he can't give out the flashy statements or vague promises because he plans on following his own line of thinking.

Those between socialism and libertarianism can go either way on any issue - they are therefore not predictable but does it mean they are not consistent with themselves?

Let's take an example: The pharmaceutical industry. It is a huge industry which plays an extremely important role in any society. Everyone needs medicine at some point in their lives, and some need more than others. The pharmaceutical industry is, in some way, "trusted" to seek cures for the most deadliest and crippling diseases man knows. However there's a catch. Some diseases don't have a "target group" big enough to sustain a profitable development of a medicine. What to do?

The Leftist (being the one who denies being a socialist but despises everything which libertarians say) claims the State has a role in "making sure" medicine is development and subsidised for those with the rare and deadly/crippling diseases. The Leftist claims the pharmaceutical industry "waists" valuable funds on advertisements and propaganda and on "welfare diseases" such as obesity and erection-problems. The State, however, makes sure the funds are used "where they are needed" - on R&D and effective (State-run) distribution (*). However, the Leftist doesn't deny that there is real need for the private enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry. Private companies work hard on making good products in a highly competitive market where time, quality and the lowest possible costs are key factors. Only the pure-grown socialist says otherwise. Do we have inconsistency?

But what about the libertarian? He would claim that a big part of the high costs of developing medicine is the State's own fault because the State sets extremely high standards before a medicine can be used by patients in need. Years and even decades can go by before a medicine can leave the laboratory and go into the hands of patients. Also, the libertarian claims that no market is small enough. How big is the market for the £450,000 Ferrari Enzo for example? The mere size of the market tells very little about someones will to satisfy it.

With that myth out of the way there's still the question of who should pay? Not all patients have money, and many long-term sick patients are actually poor. Perhaps there the Leftist could make a valid point and say that the State should pay the bill, even though it has nothing to do with the R&D and let alone the marketing and distribution. The State could hold auctions where pharmaceutical companies compete for a prize for coming up with the best medicine for the lowest price. But this method has the flaw of putting the decision of what to send to development into hands of politicians, thereby turning an illness into a project in lobby ism and a competition of what group of patients can put the most public pressure on their government.

Also, aren't companies always striving to make something which is the best, the cheapest and has high quality? The State can offer nothing new except fresh tax-money most likely removed from the hands of those who need medicine!

The libertarian would say that the free market is the best tool to solve the problem - the State should keep regulations to a minimum and trust that patients and pharmaceutical companies can work together on solving the problems at hand. If it's a question about who should pay the bill there are charity funds, the general public, private companies seeking a positive image and the pharmaceutical companies themselves in search of experience and know-how who could all contribute. Experience shows that when the State no longer claims it taxes in the name of charity and social aid, or claims its contributions to charity institutions will not increase while taxes are being decreased, people increase contributions to private charity funds by the tens of percents and even more. Also, when the State deregulates and leaves more choices up to the free market the whole social mechanism gains speed to everyone's advantage. In short: The market and the free individuals that form it are better suited to find the solutions needed than politicians.

And finally to the question: Is the Leftist being inconsistent when he promotes State-interference and the existence of the free enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry? It seems the free market can be "trusted" when it comes to satisfying the needs of the masses. Painkillers, allergy-pills, hemorrhoids-creams, influence-vaccinations, various cancer-medicine, HIV- and AIDS-repressing medicine and so on are all provided by the free market, despite State-interference, extremely harsh regulations (even for drugs for dying patients with no alternatives) and the typical excessive taxation and sky-high monitoring costs. However, the Leftist seems to think that the future need of medicine can not be met unless the State pours tax-money into the pharmaceutical industry - or the parts which the government controls (State-run universities for example). This is typical scepticism coming from the Left, and, I would say, a clear sign of inconsistency.

How is a society to function when controlled by minds which doubt all past achievements of the free market of free people, glorify all past failures of collectivism and base decisions on feelings and political pressure instead of reason, logic and experience?

(*) I think most people are familiar with the State's efficiency when it comes to using money well, but that's a whole different discussion not made here.