The problem for the libertarian is that to say yes would be to deny another person the right to make and sell that drug for himself. Saying yes also involves a certain amount of nanny state government to protect the rights of the drug inventor. This might be simple enough when it come to the intellectual property of medicine but when you add art, music, and film; this adds up to a huge government machine to protect those property rights - too big even for today's nanny state to make any progress with. Should the libertarian realise this impossibility and consider protecting some but not all intellectual property rights they are then in the game of being preferential and judgemental. The alternative that is the necessary consequence of the protection of ANY property rights is a massive central government. Such a state of affairs already exists. The vast majority of government is concerned to protect property and property rights. The libertarian aspiration is false. By extension all trade restrictions are the natural extension of property rights; so even a case against free trade can be made in terms if intellectual property rights, which a libertarian ideology is bound to protect.
On Apr 10, 2:13 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > The short answer is "yes." > That answer must be our starting point, from which we then might > modify subsequent waypoints in terms of practicality, social contract > and so forth. > > But if we abandon, from the outset, the concept of a right to personal > property, > then we jettison all incentives to invent the drug. > If no one has incentive to innovate, then there will be no drug to > regulate in the first place. > > To be sure, there wil always be (thank God!) altruistic people who > will labor for the common good and claim no reward for themselves, > other than the satisfaction of a job well done. But the reality of > human nature is that most of us expect to keep and control the fruits > of our own labor. > > The mistake of many social idealists is to assume that the remedy for > human "greed" lies in a powerful central government, which will > magically not have its own greedy agenda. Whether that agenda be > money, power, ideology or something else, government has its own > selfish interests which are often contrary to the interests of the > population in general. > > Therefore, the most sensible solution is for society to encode its > operating principles in a constitution, with processes for amendment. > And then to adhere to that constitution. While imperfect, this idea > permits the continuing advancement of society toward a more perfect > form. Government by personal opinion of those in power leads simply > to tyranny, which then leads eventually to revolt, a period of chaos, > and then to an uncertain future in which hopefully, a workable > constitution arises once more. > > On Apr 9, 11:57 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How would a Libertarian answer this question??? > > > Should a drugs company be free to charge whatever price it likes for > > the drugs it has invented regardless of the human harm it could > > prevent by making the drugs cheaper? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
