A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Business

Corporations & Cancellation: Social Media

by Leave a Comment

The big corporations possess incredible economic power and many on the left are critical of how this power is used to coerce and harm those who have less economic power. For example, Amazon is infamous for putting such severe restraints on workers that they sometimes have to urinate in bottles. Thanks to Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats, laws and court rulings (such as Citizens United)  have enabled these corporations to translate their economic power directly into political power. This is also criticized by many on the left and they note how the United States is an oligarchy rather than a democracy. This political power manifests itself in such things as anti-union laws, de-regulation, and tax breaks.

In general, Republicans are in favor of increasing the economic power of corporations and do their best to assist them in increasing their political power. This might be partially motivated by their pro-business ideology, but it is certainly motivated by the contributions and benefits they receive for advancing the interests of the wealthy.  As such, it is rather odd that many Republicans are now professing opposition to some of these corporations. Social media and tech companies have recently earned the ire of the right.

While Republicans profess to favor deregulation and embrace the free market, they are now very angry about social media and tech companies and claim that these companies have become part of cancel culture.  I do understand why they are so angry. For years, social media companies profited from extremism—including that of the American right and it must seem like a betrayal for these companies to suddenly turn against their cash cows. While the narrative on the right is that these companies are woke or that out-of-control leftists are in control, this is not the case. These companies acted based on pragmatism focused on profit.

Extremism seems to have been damaging the brands of these companies and they were under considerable pressure to do something. They presumably decided to act before lawmakers compelled them to act. There might also be some concern that enabling extremism had gone too far—while tech companies happily work with authoritarian states, their leadership would probably prefer to not live in a fascist authoritarian state. This is not to say that they are leftists, just that they are generally not fascists. Even a cursory examination of their business practices will reveal that they are not woke leftists. For example, Amazon is virulently anti-union and Facebook is hardly a worker’s paradise.

Republicans have very pragmatic reasons to be angry at these social media and tech companies for acting against extremism and enforcing their terms of service. First, a significant percentage of the right’s base consists of active extremists and they are very useful to Republicans. Second, the Republican party relies heavily on “moderate” racism, sexism, xenophobia, and intolerance as political tools.

One could argue that they are not racists, they are just very concerned that brown people are illegally entering the United States to commit crimes, steal jobs, exploit social services, vote illegally, spread disease, and replace white Americans.  One problem with these views is that they are not supported by facts. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. While the impact of migration on the economy is complicated, the evidence is that there is a positive link between immigration and economic growth. The old racist trope of diseased migrants is untrue; in fact migrants help fight disease. And, of course, the replacement hypothesis is an absurd racist hobgoblin.

Interestingly, Paul Waldman makes a solid case that Republicans want critics to call their policies “racist” and this is part of their plan. As he notes, “…they know that their political success depends on motivating their base through a particular racial narrative…” If Waldman is right, then it can be argued that the tech companies are helping the Republicans at the same time they are hurting them. After all, while the tech companies “purge” of social media did hurt the right, it also handed them a victimization narrative that they are exploiting to activate their base.

In addition to racism and such, the right also uses disinformation and misinformation as critical tools in their political battles. As noted in other essays on cancellation, the cancel culture narrative of the right is built largely on disinformation. At best it is based on hyperbole. The right’s response to the pandemic is also an exercise in disinformation and misinformation. And, of course, the biggest disinformation campaign is the big lie about the 2020 presidential election. This lie has been the foundation for nationwide efforts to restrict voting access, most famously in Georgia. While social media companies were quite happy to profit of disinformation and misinformation, this has changed somewhat in response to public pressure (and concerns that lawmakers might act). Since Republicans rely extensively on these tools, it makes sense that they would be angry about social media companies “cancelling” their lies.

While the Republicans are doing so for narrowly selfish reasons, they are right to be critical of the power of the social media and tech companies and these companies present very real dangers. As I have argued elsewhere, these companies control most of the mediums of free expression available to the masses. While they are not covered by the First Amendment, their power to limit free expression is concerning—they can effectively silence and amplify as they wish. Leftists have long argued that this gives them too much power and now the right agrees—at least when it comes to their very narrow and selfish interests. While the left and right might be able to form an alliance of convenience here, the right has a rather different goal: they want social media to be a safe space for racism, sexism, xenophobia, misinformation, and disinformation. As such, while there is a very real problem with social media, the solution cannot be to simply let the far right do as they wish—for they would simply spread hate and lies to advance their political goals. This is not to say that the left is composed entirely of angels—harmful activity and lies of the left also need to be kept in check while also allowing maximum freedom of expression. As always, there must be a balance between the freedom of expression and protecting people from meaningful harm.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Cancellation & Corporations: Fire at Will

by Leave a Comment

In the face of a global pandemic, climate change and escalating threats from China and Russia, the American right is laser focused on cancellation. As commonly used, “cancellation” is excessively vague and encompasses a range of things from celebrities being fired over Tweets, to Dr. Seuss’ estate deciding to stop publishing certain books, to Major League Baseball deciding to change the location of a game. Because of this vagueness, I will be focusing on specific types of “cancellation” in the essays in this series. While discussions of cancel culture are fraught with hyperbole and lies, there are significant matters buried under all this garbage and I will endeavor to focus on these. This first essay is about “cancelling” people by firing them for expressing their views, typically on social media.

While non-famous people do get fired for expressing their views, most of the attention is on celebrities who suffer this fate. One recent example is Disney’s decision to fire Gina Carano in response to her social media posts. Like many “cancelled” celebrities, Carano has found new employment: she is slated to produce and star in a film funded by the Daily Wire. This is fortunate, since being unemployed in America is difficult.  While I do not want to get bogged down into the specifics of Carano’s situation, it does provide a clear focus for the discussion to follow.

The narrative presented by many on the right is that out of control woke leftists are cancelling people like Carano for expressing views that are not politically correct. The danger, they claim, is that the left has the power to cancel anyone and will eventually get around to doing so. As such, one way to explain what happened is that the left overpowered a hapless multibillion dollar multinational corporation and bent corporate leadership to its will.

The obvious problem with this narrative is that it collides with another narrative of the right: the left aim to destroy America by imposing socialism. If the left had the power to make corporations like Disney do their bidding, then they would force these companies to do more than fire a celebrity. They would make these companies pay their workers better, they would force them to improve working conditions, they would compel them to be more environmentally responsible and so on for the rest of the agenda of the left. For some corporations, there is also the narrative that those in charge are leftists and therefore they fire people for their politically incorrect expression. Once again, the obvious problem with this explanation is that these “leftists” do not operate the businesses they control in accord with leftist economic values. For example, one does not see Amazon embracing unions or Disney paying their workforce based on the value their workers generate.

This is not to deny that certain business leaders express views that are left of the far right on certain social issues. For example, a gay CEO might openly endorse same-sex marriage and criticize homophobia. As another example, a female CEO might condemn the pay gap between female and male CEOs and push for more equitable pay for female CEOs. But, in general, corporation stick to professing values that are accepted by most consumers in the United States. As such, the idea that Disney fired Carano because of the power of the left or that Disney is leftist is absurd. The same applies to other corporations. As such, an alternative explanation is needed that reconciles such firings with the clearly non-leftist values of corporations.

The most plausible explanation lies in the fact that corporations depend heavily on the appeal of their brand to sell consumers goods and services. Damage to the brand hurts sales, so a clear focus of corporations is to protect the brand. While any employee could damage the brand, a celebrity employee has the potential to do considerable damage because of their fame. This is especially true of actors: their personal appeal (or repulsiveness) is a major factor in what draws fans to pay for their products. If an actor expresses views that repulses a significant number of consumers, then they become a liability: they will cost their employer revenue by damaging the brand.

While the right will claim otherwise, most Americans espouse values that are to the left of the far right. For example, most Americans express disapproval of racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism. As such, when a celebrity expresses views that seem bigoted, this can make them less appealing or even repulsive to many consumers. Some corporations also focus on branding themselves as wholesome and family focused. Disney, obviously enough, tries to do this. As such, their leadership wants to steer clear of public controversies—these are a liability to this brand. As such, when a celebrity gets fired because they express views many consumers find unappealing or offensive, their employers will act to protect their brand.  In the case of Carano, it was not that the far left is now the master of Disney. Rather, it is that Carano persisted in damaging her appeal and thus put Disney’s brand at risk. In response, they fired her. Which leads to a significant matter buried under the cancel culture hyperbole.

Disney could fire Carano because employers have vast power over their employees. This power stems from the doctrine of employment at will: an employer can fire an employee for almost any reason or no reason at all. Employees can, of course, quit for almost any reason at all or no reason at all. But employers generally hold the clear advantage: it is almost always much easier for an employer to replace an employee than for an employee to find an equal or better job.

This doctrine allows employers to exert broad control over the lives of their employees within and beyond the workplace. For example, an employer can fire an employee for holding political views they dislike, for social drinking outside of work, or for smoking outside of work. Employers also have a very broad right to surveil their employees at work or when using work equipment. While the government would need a warrant to read your work email or listen in on your calls made at work, your employer can do that at will. In some cases, they can legally put cameras in bathrooms to monitor employees.

Employees do, of course, have some rights and enjoy some very limited protection against being fired. But these rights and protections are dwarfed by the power conferred by the doctrine of employment at will. In the case of a celebrity like Carano, they can often use their advantages to offset the harm they suffered from being fired. Carano was fortunate enough to get a movie deal with the Daily Wire, an employer for whom she is totally on brand. While but a single example, this does reveal the absurdity of the right crying that someone has been cancelled when that person retains a nationwide platform from which to express their views. But, back to the focus: the harm that people can suffer from being fired.

While celebrities get the most attention when they are fired for expressing views, non-celebrities can suffer the same fate. As noted above, an employee can be fired for at will. This could be for expressing innocuous views that would not get so much as second glance if expressed on social media. What gets into the news are, of course, cases in which people get fired for expressing extreme views—such as being openly racist.

One recent example involves a woman in Virginia who was fired from her job at a food bank after a video of her telling a Black neighbor that she is ‘not the right color.’ This did not take place at work and was, until the video was released, a private matter. When explaining why the woman was fired, the representative for the food bank said that such behavior goes against the values and beliefs of the organization. While I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of this claim, there is also a very pragmatic reason to fire the woman: after the video went public, her link to the food bank was clear and she was thus damaging their brand.

While I am sometimes seen as a crazy leftist, I do recognize that an employer has a moral right to protect their reputation (or brand if you prefer). There are, of course, moral limits to this right. I also accept that when a person accepts employment and they are not coerced or deceived, then they generally have a moral obligation to act in a professional manner and not harm their employer. There are, of course, moral limits here. I do also accept, obviously enough, that employers also have moral obligations to their employees (and there are also moral limits to these obligations). So, just as an employee could often be rightfully fired for intentionally damaging equipment at work, there can also be cases where an employee can be fired for willfully damaging the brand of their employer. After all, it would be absurd to expect an employer to retain an employee who is actively harming them. But there is the rather important matter of proportionality.

While celebrities typically recover from being “cancelled” or are already so wealthy that they will be fine economically, normal people who are fired will typically face serious challenges. In addition to the obvious problem with the loss of income, health insurance is generally linked to employment and a fired person will typically lose that and other important benefits. There is also the fact that the person can be “marked” and thus find it hard to get another job. As such, a person who is fired can suffer a punishment far out of proportion to their misdeed—even if they were fired for expressing something morally wrong that could harm their employer in some manner. If the United States had national health care and a strong social safety net, then such firing would not be as harmful: being fired would not be such a brutal and serious form of punishment and a person could recover without undue harm. As such, there are ways that lawmakers who profess to care about cancel culture could address these harms.

One obvious approach is to address at will employment: workers should receive more protection against being fired without cause. In the case of expression, if we think that free expression is so important that the state should not be able to silence us, then we should also provide comparable protection to workers to protect this right from the tyranny of economic power. This is not to say that employers should be able to do anything without consequences; just that there needs to be more robust protection of workers. Those lawmakers and influencers on the right who profess to love free expression and loath cancelling can make this happen. Democrats and the left will be happy to support giving workers greater protection. Unless, of course, the protection is narrowly focused on protecting racist or sexist expression.

Another obvious approach is to make the consequences of being fired less severe. People should not need to depend on having the right sort of job to be able to get health care and there should be an adequate safety net. This also can be brought about by the anti-cancellation right. The left would certainly be happy to help protect free expression by reducing the coercive power of economic tyranny.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Mandating Vaccination for Employees

by Leave a Comment

While the wealthy have generally done very well in the pandemic, businesses and employees are eager to get back to normal economic activity. While the vaccines are not perfect, they will (probably) allow the economy to re-open to a large extent—provided enough people get them.

While there are various moral issues involving the COVID-19 vaccines, one is whether employers have the right to require employees to get vaccinated. The legal question will, of course, be addressed by law makers and the courts. While this situation is unusual, it falls under the broader issue of employee rights.

In the United States employers hold vast power over their employees. This power stems from the doctrine of employment at will: an employer can fire an employee for almost any reason or no reason at all. Employees can, of course, quit for almost any reason at all or no reason at all. But employers generally hold the clear advantage: it is much easier for an employer to replace an employee than for an employee to find an equal or better job.

This doctrine allows employers to exert broad control over the lives of their employees within and beyond the workplace. For example, an employer can fire an employee for holding political views they dislike, for social drinking outside of work, or for smoking outside of work. Employers also have a very broad right to surveil their employees at work or when using work equipment. While the government would need a warrant to read your work email or listen in on your calls made at work, your employer can do that at will. In some cases, they can legally put cameras in bathrooms to monitor employees.

While there are those who see this level of employer power to be wrong and even on par with tyranny, it does seem to be the default moral view in practice. That is, employers have the moral right to fire their employees at will—except for a very few exceptions. Under this doctrine, an employer would be within their rights to offer an employee the choice between being vaccinated and being fired—just as they can do the same thing with almost anything else. Obviously, if this doctrine is rejected, then the ethics must be addressed in a different manner.

One reasonable approach is utilitarianism. This is the view that the morality of an action is determined by its positive and negative consequences for those who count morally. Actions whose negative consequences are greater than their positive consequences are wrong. Good actions are those whose positive consequences outweigh the negative. I, like many others, use this approach when addressing large scale ethical matters—such as public policy.

Since the vaccines seem to be reasonably safe and effective, they seem to present little risk of harm (though there are always risks). They also provide the benefit of (probably) reducing the severity of an infection. While there are some concerns about how effective they will be at reducing transmission, it seems likely that they will help do so. Because of this, an employer could make the moral argument that employees must be vaccinated based on the positive consequences of reducing the likelihood and severity of their illness (which would impact the employer). There is also the fact that vaccination of employees would help protect co-workers and customers. An unvaccinated employee would be a health risk to themselves and others and thus it would be right for employers to mandate vaccination in most cases. Employees who would be harmed by the vaccine or who do not interact with other workers or customers could, of course, opt out.

One could make a broad moral argument against employer power and use this to argue that employers should not have the power to force employees to vaccinate (naturally, employees always have the right to quit to avoid doing anything they do not want to do). I do find this appealing because I think employers have far too much power and workers too few rights in terms of how employers can use economic coercion to compel employees. That said, vaccination seems morally on par with safety mandates of other kinds that are aimed at protecting workers and customers from harms and these seem warranted on utilitarian grounds. A business could be morally responsible for not requiring vaccines if employees infect each other or customers.

One way to counter this argument is to argue that requiring vaccination is different from other safety requirements. To illustrate, an employee who is required to wear a hair net while preparing food can take that off at the end of their shift and it has no lasting impact. A vaccination is rather different—the employee cannot have a vaccination that goes in at work and comes out when they are off work. While the vaccines seem safe, they do come with risks that make them rather different from hair nets and gloves (though a person could be allergic to latex gloves). As such, these might be relevant differences that break the analogy.

This can, of course, be countered by the fact that people require vaccination to attend K-12 schools and college—so there is a moral precedent to requiring vaccination. One could argue that school and work are different; the challenge would be showing how the differences break the analogy. Or one could also argue that schools should not require vaccination either—the challenge is proving this rather than just assuming it. But it is worth considering that an employer could be morally responsible if an employee were harmed because they were required to get vaccinated to keep their job.

One can also make an appeal to rights—that people have the right to refuse medical procedures. I do agree that people have this right; but it is distinct from the right to be allowed to work with people unvaccinated. By analogy, I agree that people have the right to use drugs—but this is distinct from the right to use drugs at work, such as while flying a plane.

As a closing point, it seems likely that the conservatives who almost always favor employer rights over employee rights might push against vaccine mandates at work—this is because the right has, in part, embraced the anti-mask ideology. They can, of course, present it as a matter of employer freedom—employers should be free to not mandate vaccines. They would, presumably, have some discomfort forcing businesses to not mandate vaccines, but I suppose they will brand these businesses as liberal.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Minimum Wage: The Small Business Argument

by 2 Comments

One standard argument against raising the minimum wage is based on the claim that it would hurt small businesses. This argument has some merit, at least in the context of small businesses with narrow profit margins or relatively low income. While companies like Amazon and McDonalds could increase employee wages while still making a handsome profit for upper management and shareholders, a small business that is just barely making a profit or has limited income could be hard pressed to increase wages without running at a loss.

To use an imaginary example, suppose Larry owns Larry’s Lawn Care and pays his workers $10 an hour. He charges his customers what amounts to $20 an hour for the labor of his employees and has expenses equal to about $5 an hour, so Larry makes a profit of $5 for every hour an employee works. He also draws a salary for his work running the business and working on lawns—this is worked in the billing on top of the $20 per hour charged for labor.

But if the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour then Larry would make no profit unless he cut expenses or increased the cost. If cutting expenses is not a viable option, then Larry will need to increase the cost of his services to profit from his business. This increase, some would argue, could cause a loss of business which would lead to fewer hours for employees—thus causing a loss of income or even resulting in employees being fired.

It could be countered that if Larry’s business is breaking even while Larry is earning a wage for his own labor, then everything is good—Larry and his workers would seem to be getting what they deserve within the context of what customers are willing to pay for the services. But if the business was experiencing a loss and could not make full payroll because the wages and the bare bones cost of operating the business exceeded what customers would pay, then it can be claimed that the increase in wages hurt the business and employees. This is the sort of scenario used in making the small business argument against minimum wage. The reasoning is that because of the harms of increasing wages (which is an empirical matter) the wages should not be increases.

But it must be noted operating costs (and such) are also a factor—if gas and equipment costs were lower, the lawn care business would have more income.  But it is generally not argued that the cost of such things should be kept low by the government to aid small businesses—the burden of keeping small businesses profitable is thus put on the employees. One could argue that keeping the operating costs low would hurt other businesses and thus (possibly) hurt other employees—but this is a choice about who is harmed and how. Increasing what the customers pay would also shift the harms, which is also a choice. But one would need to sort out the impact of increasing prices in terms of how it would impact available hours and jobs. Interestingly, those who argue against minimum wage tend to accept that companies can raise prices to increase profits even when doing so could result in employees losing hours or jobs—in fact, companies are often rewarded financially for firing people. To be consistent, someone who argues that increasing minimum wage is wrong because it would hurt employees by reducing hours or costing jobs must also argue that profitable policies that result in workers losing hours or jobs would also be wrong. Otherwise, it would be evident that the argument has nothing to do with protecting employees and everything to do with protecting profit. An honest argument would be refreshing: wages should not be increased because owners would make less profit.

It is also often argued that the increase in wages would hurt small businesses because larger companies can afford to pay these wages while still making vast profits. One easy reply is that if this is true, then small business could have an exception—perhaps requiring that they prove they would be unfairly harmed. A second reply is that those who argue against increasing the minimum wage on this ground would also need to argue that small businesses be protected from larger businesses in other ways. After all, if the minimum wage should not be increased because smaller businesses cannot compete with large business, then the state should also see to it that larger businesses do not enjoy other advantages over small businesses. If one is not willing to accept this view, then it is likely that one does not care about small businesses—one just does not want wages increased. At third reply is the free market reply: if small businesses cannot compete on wages, then they will go out of business just as they would if they cannot compete in other ways.

A final response to the small business argument is to point out that the argument can be taken to be that minimum wage should not be increased because doing so would decrease the income of small business owners. This seems to assume that the owners are entitled to their profits. But employees can point out that not increasing the minimum wage (even if only to match inflation) reduces their income as inflation reduces the value of their wages. So, if reducing income is wrong, then not increasing the minimum wage to at least account for inflation would be wrong—after all the owners would still me making the same profit they were before (adjusted for inflation). As such, those who oppose increasing the minimum wage to at least account for inflation cannot consistently use the small business argument—unless they are willing to be clear that what they are concerned with is the profits of the owners rather than alleged harms that might arise to employees.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Tax Cuts Check In

by 11 Comments

When the Trump administration cut taxes I made the prediction that these cuts would no do what he claimed they would. Since then, I have followed up on the cuts to see what effect they are having.

This is, of course, a basic method in critical thinking: make predictions and then observe the results before asserting that the claims are or are not correct. Naturally one must take into account factors that can also influence the results. For example, the tax cuts might be doing good, yet be offset by some other factors so they appear to not be effective. Claims of offsetting factors must be backed up with evidence of their own, otherwise an ad hoc perpetual defense of anything would be possible. So what have the results been?

While the tax cut was claimed to benefit everyone, 60% of the benefits went to the top 20%. Trump has promised tax cuts for the middle class, but this seems to be eternally a promise made today for a tax cut tomorrow.

The tax cuts did not pay for themselves; corporate tax revenue dropped 31% in the first year of the cuts and general tax revenues have declined.

When a Democrat is President, Republicans rage against the deficit and use it to justify cuts in social spending. Under Trump, the federal deficit was $984 billion this year–unusually high. The tax cuts have a clear and obvious causal link to the deficit since less revenue (plus more spending) will create more debt.

There has been economic growth under Trump, but at 2.9% it is the same as it was under Obama in 2015. Projected growth for 2020 is 2%. As such, the tax cuts did not seem to help. To be fair, Trump’s trade wars are having a negative impact on growth so it is worth considering that growth could be worse without the cuts–but this should not simply be assumed.

On the positive side, the stock market is doing well–which is great for those whose wealth is composed mostly of investment. Unemployment is also extremely low. It is not clear how much impact the tax cuts had on this; to simply infer they caused these results would be to fall into the post hoc fallacy.

These results are utterly unsurprising. Tax cuts never pay for themselves and have consistently resulted in high deficits (especially when paired with increased spending). The possible boost to the stock market and reduced unemployment are certainly important points to consider–but the link must be tested rather than assumed.

In most ways assessing tax cuts does not matter; both parties have long-held talking points on tax cuts that drive the presence or lack of cuts. In general, the Republicans are wrong about more things but this hardly seems to matter to their policy making.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Hurricanes & Pharmaceutical Prices

by 10 Comments

Image Credit

While the Democrats and President Trump have expressed support for reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear that he will oppose efforts to impose price controls, saying that “Socialist price controls will do a lot of left-wing damage to the healthcare system.” This does not, of course, entail that McConnel would oppose all efforts to reduce the cost of drugs, but it does seem to express a general opposition to the state engaging in efforts to control prices. This view is typically defended on free market grounds: the market should set the prices for products rather than the state. The stock moral argument, going back to the beginning of capitalism, is that everyone will be better off this way.

One obvious problem with defending drug pricing on free market grounds is that the pharmaceutical industry is largely based on the state enforcing drug patents—that is, the state uses its coercive power to ensure that the market is restricted rather than free. While it is reasonable to debate what regulations, if any, should exist the fact that this sort of regulation is accepted does open the door to additional regulation. To use an analogy, if someone says that they will oppose all efforts for their family to have a pet on the grounds of the principle of the pet-free house and yet they already have a dog, then the door would thus seem to be open to more pets. After all, the principle has already been violated. This does not preclude debating about whether to get another pet but justifying not getting another pet by appealing to the no-pet policy would be absurd. As such, the free-market argument is rather problematic—unless companies are willing to fully embrace the free market. This does not provide a positive argument for price control, at best it takes away an argument against it. I now turn to an argument for price control of certain drugs.

My adopted state of Florida is routinely ravaged by hurricanes and other disasters. In the past, free-marketeers used these disasters as opportunities to use the law of supply and demand to the fullest: they charged people exorbitant prices for goods and services that were in demand because of the disaster. Detractors of this free-market approach labeled this entrepreneurship “price-gouging” and Florida responded by protecting consumers. The gist is that it is unlawful during a state of emergency to charge prices that are unconscionable. From a moral standpoint, the justification for this protection is that is morally wrong to use an emergency to coerce people into paying excessive prices. This is clearly a limit on how the free market sets prices and would seem to set a moral and legal precedent for taking an analogous approach to drug pricing.

As noted, what makes price gouging in an emergency unethical is using basic needs in a disaster as a means of coercing people into paying higher prices. The same principle would apply by analogy to drug pricing for medically necessary drugs. To use medical necessity to coerce people into paying higher prices would thus be at least as wrong as using an emergency to coerce people into playing more for important goods and services.

It could be objected that charging high prices for drugs is not gouging when the high price is the normal price. To use an analogy, charging a high price for generators during a disaster would not be gouging if that was the normal price for the generators. The counter to this is to point out that the price can be compared to the prices paid in other countries (adjusting for relevant factors) for the same drug. So, if Americans are paying exorbitant sums for the same medication that is available in Canada for far less, then Americans are being gouged. Gouging an also occur when the price is increased-such as is the case with insulin.  Intuitively, price gouging can also take place even when the “normal” price is high—this is because gouging is a matter of coercion and not just a matter of comparing prices.

Given the above, it is morally and legally acceptable for the state to limit price gouging during emergencies, then it is also legally and morally acceptable for the state to do the same for medically necessary drugs. This is based on the principle that using legitimate needs to coerce people into paying excessive prices is morally unacceptable.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: