RFK Jr wants to ban Big Pharma ads

[Invisible Man]

It constantly annoys me that only maybe 2 or 3 people on this forum agree with us on this. It's not theoretical either. I can't think of a quicker way to wreck a country than to start nationalizing corporations. Look at Venezuela for example.

At least Ron Paul agrees with us.

I've seen some decent articles on this topic over the years at mises.org too.

 

[Cleaner44]

So you think Big pharma TV ads should be banned by the state?

Yes.

 

[Madison320]

"but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

That was a quote from Ron Paul, which happens to be my position as well.

When are shareholders held accountable? That's the point of a corporation.

Corporations get sued all the time and it drives down the stock price and the dividend shares of the shareholders.

 

[Madison320]

SCOTUS agrees with you. The courts agree with you. Hell, common law agrees with you. They banned cigarette ads decades ago, still no Venezuela, even theoretically.

Yeah, well we're 36 trillion in debt, we've printed 7 trillion since 2008 and we're running trade deficits of a trillion a year. That says we're on the path to Venezuela. And a large part of the problem is businesses can't make a profit from all the taxes and regulations.

 

[otherone]

That was a quote from Ron Paul, which happens to be my position as well.




Corporations get sued all the time and it drives down the stock price and the dividend shares of the shareholders.

Of course. Corporate officers can also be charged criminally if warranted. Shareholders are never held criminally or civilly liable for the actions of their company. They simply, potentially lose their investment. That's my point. The reason is that the Law defines a corporation as an individual, not a collective. The Law claims this entity has rights, although limited, bestowed upon it by the Law, that are separate from the rights of its constituent owners.

 

[otherone]

Yeah, well we're 36 trillion in debt, we've printed 7 trillion since 2008 and we're running trade deficits of a trillion a year. That says we're on the path to Venezuela. And a large part of the problem is businesses can't make a profit from all the taxes and regulations.

Agreed on all points. Pretty much reining in big pharma is the tipping point, though.

 

[Madison320]

PS. Can libertarians please start finding hills to die on that someone actually gives a f'k about?

I tend to focus on economic issues and property rights more than most people. I really think we're on the edge of a major economic collapse and adding more regulations to our businesses is going to make things much worse.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I tend to focus on economic issues and property rights more than most people. I really think we're on the edge of a major economic collapse and adding more regulations to our businesses is going to make things much worse.

And there are plenty of economic issues that are more relatable to the average American than the plight of (quasi-nationalized) corporations that willfully cooperated with contacts in government in a mutually beneficial scheme to diminish the free speech rights of any and all contrary opinion-holders for the last 4 years.

I mean, it's just not something that rallies people around the flag, ya know?

 

[unknown]

https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1881902539492524040

 

[Madison320]

Of course. Corporate officers can also be charged criminally if warranted. Shareholders are never held criminally or civilly liable for the actions of their company. They simply, potentially lose their investment. That's my point. The reason is that the Law defines a corporation as an individual, not a collective. The Law claims this entity has rights, although limited, bestowed upon it by the Law, that are separate from the rights of its constituent owners.

I'm not following how any of what you said proves that you can deny the rights of (in this case censor) a corporation (group of owners) but not an individual.

Suppose Bob decides to have a garage sale and he hires Fred to run the sale while Bob is out of town. In this scenario Bob is equivalent to the shareholders and Fred is the CEO. Fred would be the one who gets criminally charged if he injured a customer. Since Bob wouldn't be held responsible for the actions of Fred, would that mean Bob loses his rights? Would it be ok to ban Bob from advertising his garage sale for example?

Also look at the practical side of it.

Suppose Fred spills grease and a customer slips and is paralyzed and it's going to cost 10 million to treat him. Compare that to a customer who slips in a walmart. Who is more likely to get compensated? Obviously the customer at walmart is far more likely to get compensated.

 

[TheTexan]

Big Pharma is tied at the hip with government and is thus not a person, individual or otherwise

It has no rights

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Bring Back Liquor ads and of course My Pillow ads.

 

[Madison320]

SCOTUS agrees with you. The courts agree with you. Hell, common law agrees with you. They banned cigarette ads decades ago, still no Venezuela, even theoretically.

If we explicitly declared that all corporate decisions will be made by the US government, as you appear to be in favor of, no corporations would exist in the US. Then we absolutely would become venezuela.

 

[Working Poor]

I remember how it was before the airwaves were polluted with big pharma ads. It was a real boon to big pharma dn doctors when patients started coming in telling doctors what they wanted. It sickens me when I see a big pharma ad...I wish they would be taken off the air people were healthier before big pharma was able to promote itself in media. It makes it easy for me to not watch tv though

 

[Occam's Banana]

Post in thread 'RFK Jr. Says He Will Prosecute “Lying” Medical Journals "Killing Americans"'

Jun 12, 2025

In order to MAHA!! correctly, one must limit the dissemination of information solely to government-approved-and-licensed "experts" (i.e., doctors and the like), who would of course never lie or misinform, or cater to special-interest cronies, or be influenced by regulatory capture, or so on and so forth.

For the sake of their own good health, the peasants Americans must be kept ignorant of what drugs are available for what purposes at what prices, and other similar distractions.

(And they must especially be kept unaware of the costs of those things - but that's...

• Occam's Banana

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[unknown]

The way Tucker says "yeah", haha.