Corporate toadies to the last

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 28 May 2001 10:03:10 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED DEC. 27, 2000
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Corporate toadies to the last

Ever mindful of the wishes of their corporate backers, the Clinton administration first balked at the bill proposed by Sen. James Jeffords, R-Vt., to allow the re-importation of U.S.-manufactured pharmaceuticals which sell at lower prices overseas.

(U.S. prices for popular arthritis, depression, and cholesterol-lowering medications are often 30 to 50 percent higher than in other nations -- even after factoring in the cost of shipment.)

But the idea of allowing pharmacies to re-import the less expensive drugs won bipartisan congressional approval when Democrats and Republicans proved unable to agree on any more comprehensive scheme to federally subsidize prescription drugs, particularly for the elderly (an expenditure which, for the record, the Congress has no constitutional authority whatever.)

Faced with widespread popular support for the re-import measure, President Clinton finally signed it, praising GOP congressional leaders at the time for agreeing "in the face of the drug companies' opposition, to give Americans access to prescription drugs that are cheaper in other countries."

But implementation procedures contained a loophole -- they were subject to an OK from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

And guess what? Tuesday, outgoing HHS Secretary Donna Shalala -- think there's any chance of landing some hefty new drug research grants down at the U of Miami next year, Madame Secretary? -- again placed the ongoing pharmaceutical industry protection racket above the ability of America's poor and elderly to buy affordable prescription medicines, announcing she would not even request the $23 million appropriated to start the program because "Flaws and loopholes ... make it impossible for me to demonstrate that it is safe and cost effective."

Humbug. If it's not cost-effective, pharmacies simply won't re-import. But how could it not be cost-effective to re-import drugs which sell at half price overseas? And as for safety -- does the Secretary imply she's allowing U.S. manufacturers to ship out unsafe drugs to our foreign friends and allies?

The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises -- whose English was far from perfect in the early years after he immigrated here -- once halted a discussion between Murray Rothbard and others of his New York students to ask "What is this word 'loophole' you keep using?" When the young Americans had finished explaining the colloquialism, von Mises sagely observed, "Ah. So you call it a 'loophole' when the government still allows you some freedom."

A theoretical objection can be raised that by re-importing these drugs, Americans to some extent embrace the anti-free-market price caps imposed by more or less fascist foreign governments. But no one forces the drug firms to sell overseas under those conditions -- if they're not making a profit, they can refuse to export there, in the first place.

All forms of competition work to the advantage of the consumer -- including the breakdown of arbitrary price supports imposed by the government's monopoly on armed force through arbitrary bans on "re-importation."

The real question is why millions of dollars need to be spent simply to tear down these protectionist tariff walls, allowing U.S. pharmacies to re-import any drug which meets their own safety standards. Clearly, the extra tens of millions are for hundreds of new inspectors to make sure we're not allowed too much commercial freedom ... when the real solution would be to declare all pharmaceutical imports duty free on humanitarian grounds, from penicillin to Prozac, from coca leaves to Indian hemp.

Thank goodness this current batch of corporate toadies -- any more Tyson Chicken executives in need of pardons, Mr. President? Any more convicted cocaine smugglers to whom you'd like to restore the right to carry a handgun? -- will be gone inside a month. Perhaps Mr. Bush's nominees can do a little better.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (952-895-8757.) His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Mr. Gore wants 10,000 invalid ballots counted ... for him
Sparing us The Emperor Al
Time to draw the line
And now ... armed guards at the DMV
The failed drug war and the real significance of 'Dune'
The milkers and the milked
Truck seizure goes too far
A purely cosmetic measure
Like introducing 'just a little sewage' in the water supply
French court sets a bad -- and ridiculous -- precedent

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair