Analogy:
Suppose for a moment, a drug. (like, the kind you take.)
We will say it has two potential kinds of effects; Beneficial, and detrimental.
Based on how this drug is used (oversight), it can weigh in at one side, or the other, of this spectrum.
For instance, THC. (the stuff in Pot that gets you high.) This substance has very real therapeutic use potential. If you could somehow guarantee that it would never be misused, this substance would be of tremendous value to humanity. Assuming you could perfectly make and enforce this guarantee (through fucking magic, I dont care) then there would be no reason to otherwise restrict its availability.
However, this is not descriptive of reality. The reality, is that the non-therapeutic use cases greatly exceed the therapeutic use cases, and there is no way to reliably restrict how people use it. This is why we generally try to make it illegal. (the cumulative consequences of non-therapeutic uses is in totality, generally detrimental to society.) The fact that we can literally just squeeze it out of a plant, with little processing, means this stuff is also dirt cheap.
Compare that with a more difficult to synthesize drug, that is created with a very specific set of baseline criteria about how it operates, and what it is meant to do. Something like say, a synthetic antibody, or even a vaccine. There are very few, if any, non-therapeutic uses for this substance. However, this specificity greatly increases the cost to manufacture.
For the purposes of this analogy, the following parallels are established:
Potential for therapeutic use == Potential for a foundation to do its stated objective
Potential for non-therapeutic use == Potential for the foundation to do some other work, at the public's expense/loss
Cost of manufacture == Cost of operation
EG-- the vaccine, is like a highly regulated (and thus high-recurring-cost of overhead) foundation, for a single, and specific task: Triggering innate immunity to a single pathogen. (for a foundation, it performs a single service: say, giving shoes to orphans. It does nothing else. ONLY SHOES.)
THC on the other hand, does a LOT of things. This is more like what Clinton Foundation, Trump Foundation, et al-- are. They do A LOT of things. They do a lot of things that are not beneficial. THC will get you high as a fucking kite, as well as help with your depression, anxiety, promote hunger to counter your cancer treatment's loss of appetite, stimulate the retrograde signalling pathway to reinforce new memory circuits in the presence of neural damage (such as from Alzheimer's), etc. Likewise, a private foundation like this can be a fucking personal piggy bank to get around those NASTY taxes.
The goal is to find the ideal balance between "Can accomplish more than one goal" and "Potential for abuse greatly exceeds potential for proper use."
Orgs like Clinton Foundation, Trump Foundation, et al, have a tremendous potential for abuse-- greatly exceeding their potential for good, based on raw statistics from reality. (EG, even through Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, et al-- all DO IN FACT do charity work, and enable some very high profile charitable projects to get completed, because of their comprehensive scopes of operation, they also enable, routinely and more regularly, very much NOT CHARITABLE projects to get completed. )
Orgs like these are like "High risk of abuse" drugs, like Oxycodone, THC, Fentanyl, etc.
Yeah, they are broad spectrum, (in this case, they are all generally pain relievers-- If you have a pain, ANY KIND OF PAIN, they will hit it.) However, they really should not be the first choice medication, and aside from things that really and truly cannot be accomplish in any other way, should not be used at all, because of how dangerous they are when abused, and how often they become abused, because of how easy they are to abuse.
Since we cannot effectively regulate orgs like these, (because of a wide raft of political reasons), we really should not permit their use, AND-- for the reasons why we want to avoid using drugs like fentanyl, when something like topical lidocaine would be vastly safer at the same effective relief (for example), we really dont want to reach for orgs of this kind or size, when smaller and more targeted orgs can get the same job done, with far less potential for abuse.
Simply put-- There is a growing showing of real world evidence that these kinds of orgs represent a political health crisis, in the same vein that hard hitting broad spectrum drugs pose a growing public health crisis.
Quibbling over weather or not Crystal Meth (say, Trump foundation) is worse than Adderall (say, Clinton Foundation), is a red herring. Both are used recreationally, to great public harm. The latter just so happens to also be an effective treatment for a specific condition, while the former is not.
This argument is more of this form:
If you can get the same benefits for ADD that adderall offers, without all the recreational use potential, there would be no reason to make or prescribe adderall.
Likewise, if you can get the same benefits to the public good that Clinton Foundation offers, without all the corruption and misuse, you should not have orgs like the clinton foundation.
It currently looks like these super-orgs have greater potential for abuse than they do for intention of corporation. As such, they should be either banned outright (such as with dangerous psychotropics, like LSD) or they should be extremely regulated to bring that potential for abuse under control for the public good.
Since the mechanisms to enforce that regulation are defacto "Always captured" (the foxes do not regulate themselves, when it comes to accessing the henhouse), this leaves only the option to effectively ban them as a practice, to prevent that abuse.
EG, these orgs should not exist, even when they are in fact, sometimes doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3670815 times)