By Mike <firstname.lastname@example.org>
April 2, 2004
[Forward by Chris Gupta: The following will help reinforce
my earlier contention (Preface to Medical Veritas...) regarding the understanding
of the root causes. Surely without understanding the problem one can hardly
come to grips with the solution? Freedom and ethics in such sectors as
medical, energy etc. is very unlikely if we choose to ignore what is staring
us in the face!...Chris Gupta]
The problem lies in authoritarianism (i.e. government). When
you give one group (the State) a monopoly on cohesive force (violence) you
will always, and I mean, always have things like this . The problem is not
medicine, the problem is GOVERNMENT. It's not lack of laws. It's not a faulty
constitution. It's not that we need more studies. It's not that we need
more citizen involvement. The problem lies squarely on the fact that we
allow one group of people to have a monopoly on the use or force. NOTE:
we all know that true monopolies are bad, yet we think it's ok for government
to have monopolies. Hmmmm.... what's wrong with this picture?
If we didn't have any governing body to speak of we would
not have this problem. People would be free to choose their own remedies.
They would seek out whomever they wished for consultation (and not necessarily
In the free market, if a company puts out a crappy product
people would find out and simply stop buying that product. The company would
have to improve its quality or it would go out of business (the consumer
would VOTE it out of office.... in real-time.... not after five years).
In the event of a real injury the company will be sued out of existence,
and it's CEOs possibly imprisoned. However, if you take our present situation
we are all forced (BY GOVERNMENT) to accept their (crappy over priced) services
(even if they lead to an early death). Now that's the danger of a true monopoly.
If anyone tries to compete with any government monopoly they
will most certainly be in big trouble. Whereas in the free market the consumer
gets to choose, and will only keep on choosing (voting for that company
with their dollars) if that provider of goods and services can satisfy them
in some way. If that so-called "cure for cancer" doesn't work
then we'll soon find out and move onto another therapy. This will lead to
higher quality health care through the process of elimination and (more
importantly) unhampered experimentation (nature's unsurpassed survival of
the fittest law) . Health care is just like any other good or service, because
it is subject to the same natural laws of supply and demand.
The free market will always strive to bring the highest quality
at the lowest prices (unless you have a cohesive force mucking things up).
This comes about simply because of competition between providers. And, NO,
there is no such thing as a true monopoly in a totally free market setting.
In order to have a true monopoly you must use some sort of force in order
to make things stay the same.
In the free market a company could only get people to buy
into its products if it can provide better value than the next guy. This
is why Wall-Mart is successful. Wall-Mart doesn't force people to buy its
products. People buy them because they offer the lowest overall prices at
the highest quality for that price range. If a company tries to set up a
true monopoly by buying up its competition then it will soon find itself
pricing its goods too high to make up for its capital expenditures. If it
holds its prices down in order to put its competition out of business then
it will drain away its capital reserves and go out of business as well.
It will, in effect, be transferring its wealth to the public in the form
of prices being lower than the true market rate. No company can afford to
become a true monopoly using these methods in the long run. The only way
it can hope to gain any form of monopoly is to compete with it competitors
and try and out do them in the form of quality and price, and no one will
complain about that.
If companies try to set up a cartel, this will not work in
the long run either because as prices rise the temptation for one company
to cheat will be too great. Also, when prices are too high this makes it
very tempting for new entrepreneurs to enter the market and compete. If
a cartel manages to hold together long enough new technology will be developed
that will compete with the cartel indirectly. This is called parallel competition.
This is the worst kind of competition because it's technologically dissimilar
and can be cheaper to produce and more effective. A good example of this
is when Sony came out with the Batamax system. It didn't want to license
it to other manufactures. It wanted a monopoly. So another company called
JVC developed the VHS format and they licensed it like crazy. Batamax was
clearly the better technology at that time but JVC won out, it was a parallel
technology, albeit slightly inferior --- but it satisfied the consumer and
they voted for it with their dollars. BOOOM -- Bata GONE!!! This is true
democracy at work. The free (unhampered) market is a beautiful thing. Can
you imagine if the GOVERNMENT stepped in and prevented JVC from competing?
à la: Health Canada Puts Health at Risk!
The best thing for us to do is work to get rid of government
as we know it. We must eliminate all forms of cohesive competition and allow
people to choose, and, YES, even make mistakes.
Web posted at: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/04/01/roots_of_medical_other_monopolies.htm
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 7:29 AM
Subject: Roots of Medical & Other Monopolies
Re: Roots of Medical & Other Monopolies
This is childlishly idealistic. It ignores the predator side
of human nature. Presently the big corporations use government as simply
one more tool in their array of resources, just as they use labor and materials.
If there were no government, we would be back to the gangs or private armed
forces system. It is always power that will prevail, in any form. This is
until human nature evolves to a real cooperative spirit, based on the uderstanding
that human beings are sacred to one another. So the problem is not goverment
either. It is, as always, man.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.