On Apr 29, 6:09 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Not so. Making it for sale is the issue. > 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 Again, not so.Such matters end up in civil courts. If you institute some form of "loser pays" rule, there would be little burden on the taxpayer. (snip) > 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. Once more, and a thousand more times, not so! A framework of rules would prevent violations to begin with. The few that do occur would be more borderline cases requiring a judge. But the scenario is nowhere nearly as dire as you portray it. > > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
