You went full Atlas Shrugged. Never go full Atlas Shrugged.

[Curried Goats]

Here's what a real libertarian philosopher has to say about the notion of artificially induced scarcity:

If man were a solitary animal, if he worked solely for himself, if he consumed directly
the fruits of his labor—in short, if he did not engage in exchange—the theory of
scarcity could never have been introduced into the world. It would be all too evident,
in that case, that abundance would be advantageous for him, whatever its source, whether he owed it to his industriousness, to the ingenious tools and powerful machines that he had invented, to the fertility of the soil, to the liberality of Nature, ox even to a mysterious invasion of goods that the tide had carried from abroad and left on the shore. No solitary man would ever conclude that, in order to make sure that his own labor had something to occupy it, he should break the tools that save him labor, neutralize the fertility of the soil, or return to the sea the goods it may have brought him. He would easily understand that labor is not an end in itself, but a means, and that it would be absurd to reject the end for fear of doing injury to the means. He would understand, too, that if he devotes two hours of the day to providing for his needs, any circumstance (machinery, the fertility of the soil, a gratuitous gift, no matter what) that saves him an hour of this labor, so long as the product is as great, puts that hour at his disposal, and that he can devote it to improving his well-being, He would understand, in short, that a saving in labor is nothing else than progress.

The idea that it's beneficial for society for one man or company to induce scarcity by limiting the production of a particular good is nothing more than propaganda from the producer who is the only one who benefits from that arrangement.

 

[White 6]

Feinstein's niece has something to do with that.

And whatcha wanna bet Feinstein has stock in her company, too?

She took it to the grave. Damn. She was powerful.

 

[Curried Goats]

TNHarley

Are you afraid to engage with me in debate? Explain to me, rationally, how it benefits society to allow one man or company to use the force of law to limit competition and leave consumers with fewer options.

 

[rampart]

By a strictly defined set of enumerated powers.
The statist rhetoric, yours, pretty much gives them the power to do whatever in the hell they want. So whats the point of having enumerated powers? Answer is, there wouldnt be one. There would be no point for a Constitution, if thats what the Founders had envisioned.

we have obviously agreed that some constitutional matters are academic. the purchase of louisiana and the erie canal come to mind as "unconstitutional" but fortuitous actions taken by the founders. the funding of the army and the declaration of war are 2 more forgotten constitutional mandates, lost to the necessities of 20th cemtury warfare.

statist? if you say so. but in the usa ONLY the state (or the currently defanged unions) has enough resources to counterbalance corporate monopoly.

 

[Oddball]

The Biden administration has determined that it has the authority to seize the patents of certain high-priced medicines, a move that could open the door to a more aggressive federal campaign to slash drug prices.

The determination, which was described by three people familiar with the matter, represents the culmination of a nearly nine-month review of the government’s so-called march-in rights. Progressives have long insisted that those rights empower the administration to break the patents of pricey drugs that were developed with public funds, in an effort to create more competition and lower prices.

The administration will not endorse the widespread use of march-in rights, and is not expected to take action against any individual medicines, said the people familiar with the matter, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal decision making.

Instead, the Commerce Department on Thursday plans to issue a new framework spelling out factors that federal agencies should weigh in determining whether to take march-in action against expensive drugs or other individual products that were created with federal help. The price and availability of that product to the public are among the factors the department will recommend that agencies consider.
The department will seek public feedback on the framework, which is likely to face sharp opposition from pharmaceutical companies that argue it’s illegal for the government to seize its patents and would disincentivize the development of new drugs.

You went full bullshit. Never go full bullshit.

You went full freeloader.

 

[TNHarley]

we have obviously agreed that some constitutional matters are academic. the purchase of louisiana and the erie canal come to mind as "unconstitutional" but fortuitous actions taken by the founders. the funding of the army and the declaration of war are 2 more forgotten constitutional mandates, lost to the necessities of 20th cemtury warfare.

statist? if you say so. but in the usa ONLY the state (or the currently defanged unions) has enough resources to counterbalance corporate monopoly.

Pass an amendment. Why is that so hard for you people? Instead of just pissing on the constitution?
You people make me sick.

 

[Oddball]

TNHarley

Are you afraid to engage with me in debate? Explain to me, rationally, how it benefits society to allow one man or company to use the force of law to limit competition and leave consumers with fewer options.

It doesn't....So why don't little bootlickers like you want to dramatically shrink The State and curtail its power?

 

[TNHarley]

TNHarley

Are you afraid to engage with me in debate? Explain to me, rationally, how it benefits society to allow one man or company to use the force of law to limit competition and leave consumers with fewer options.

Certainly not. You are a goddamn troll. But I will entertain you for a post.
Intellectual property and individuall rights are one in the same. People work hard to develop something, just so some scum POS like you can come out of the woodwork and steal it?
We still have contracts to where others can sell products patented by another.

 

[Curried Goats]

It doesn't....So why don't little bootlickers like you want to dramatically shrink The State and curtail its power?

Because that it's an incredibly stupid and simple way to look at government. It would be neutered in its ability to use for to protect one person's business interests it should be robust in holding that business to account for any harm it produces to society such as polution.

 

[Oddball]

Because that it's an incredibly stupid and simple way to look at government. It would be neutered in its ability to use for to protect one person's business interests it should be robust in holding that business to account for any harm it produces to society such as polution.

No, it's a very sensible way to look at it....And it exposes disingenuous cafeteria "libertarians" for the fucking poseurs that you are.

 

[Curried Goats]

Certainly not. You are a goddamn troll. But I will entertain you for a post.
Intellectual property and individuall rights are one in pollution.

How so? Rationally, only one person can own a piece of physical property but ideas can be shared by many.

People work hard to develop something, just so some scum POS like you can come out of the woodwork and steal it?

If you build an efficient widget I'm not suggesting anyone should be allowed to come take your widget I'm suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to use force to prevent others from making a similar one.

We still have contracts to where others can sell products patented by another.

That's not a rational explanation for why you should be allowed to use the force of law to prevent people from copying you.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it's a very sensible way to look at it....And it exposes disingenuous cafeteria "libertarians" for the fucking poseurs that you are.

If it were sensible you'd have a retort that didn't begin and end with name calling.

 

[TNHarley]

No, it's a very sensible way to look at it....And it exposes disingenuous cafeteria "libertarians" for the fucking poseurs that you are.

 

[Oddball]

If it were sensible you'd have a retort that didn't begin and end with name calling.

When I see a disingenuous bootlicker, I identify them for who they are.

The only time you give a flying fuck what any classical liberal thinker has to say, it's in support of your statist proclivities....You couldn't be a bigger intellectual fraud if you were paid to be.

 

[TNHarley]

How so? Rationally, only one person can own a piece of physical property but ideas can be shared by many.

If you build an efficient widget I'm not suggesting anyone should be allowed to come take your widget I'm suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to use force to prevent others from making a similar one.

That's not a rational explanation for why you should be allowed to use the force of law to prevent people from copying you.

No, that would be stealing. Intellectual property is private property, you collectivist dumbfuck.

 

[Curried Goats]

When I see a disingenuous bootlicker, I identify them for who they are.

The only time you give a flying fuck what any classical liberal thinker has to say, it's in support of your statist proclivities....You couldn't be a bigger intellectual fraud if you were paid to be.

I'm not suggesting there aren't flaws to libertarian philosophy, there are. Big ones. I'm just pointing out that you morons don't actually understand libertarian philosophy.

 

[Dragonlady]

Let this be a lesson to all of you: Be careful what you do out of your hatred, because you could be breeding the very thing you hate.

If Democrats don't want to be labeled as commies, they need to avoid acting like commies. They're going to breed a new generation of Randians if they start embracing nationalizing patents.

This is 100% the wrong approach. Patents have to be honored. If the duration of patents is too long, then push for legislation that changes the duration. The playing field must be equal. At the very least, if they want medications to have a shorter duration, then put it into legislation. That, at least, would be an honest, over the table approach that would allow the manufacturers to decide whether the investment is worth the pay-off. Better yet, if they feel the greater public good so severely needs access to these medications, then the federal government should fund the research and development directly. This, again, would at least be an honest approach. But if Biden does this in this way, it's nothing short of theft.

The Biden administration has determined that it has the authority to seize the patents of certain high-priced medicines, a move that could open the door to a more aggressive federal campaign to slash drug prices.

Targeting costly meds, Biden admin asserts authority to seize certain drug patents

Except that Big Pharma is playing a shell game here.

The USA has the longest patent protections in the world - years longer than any other nation which is why so many drug patents are filed there. When the patents near expiry, Big Pharma is tweaking the drug or its delivery system and filing a new patent on the "new and improved" drug, extending it's high price for years.

Insulin is a prime example. Why were Americans paying more than $500 per month for insulin before the Inflation Reduction Act? When Banting and Best discovered insulin they took out no patent on the drug whatsoever. The literally gave insulin to the world to save diabetics.

Why insulin and other medications are so much cheaper to buy in Canada $32 versus $320 in the U.S. - Jeff Newman Law

Canada, like many other industrialized countries, has price controls on the cost of pharmaceuticals. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board strictly regulates the price of patented medicine sold in Canada so that it is not excessive. However Canada does not regulate the price of generic...

jeffnewmanlaw.com

EXPLAINER: Why is insulin so expensive and difficult to cap?

Reining in the soaring prices of insulin has thus far been elusive in Congress, although Democrats say they’ll try again — as part of their economic package that focuses on health and climate.

apnews.com

 

[Curried Goats]

No, that would be stealing. Intellectual property is private property, you collectivist dumbfuck.

That's a legal argument not a rational one. Ideas aren't private, everyone can have them and recognize good ones.

 

[Oddball]

No, that would be stealing. Intellectual property is private property, you collectivist dumbfuck.

This is high comedy.

The moonbats cite Rand and other classical liberal thinkers, in order to chide a massive industry, that largely exists only because of the immense subsidies and regulatory hurdles that Rand would roundly castigate.....Thus, as a rationale for them to get in on the free lunch.

And they wonder why they get derided as the kooks that they are.

 

[TNHarley]

That's a legal argument not a rational one. Ideas aren't private, everyone can have them and recognize good ones.

It is rational. I dont expect a collectivist to understand.