So According to Libertarianism, Price Gouging is OK, Right? Well, How About These Examples....

[JimBowie1958]

Libertarianism Applied; Pharmaceutical Price Abuse is AOK

Libertarians dont like talking about the freedom to price gouge the helpless poor, babies and HIV patients.

According to Libertarian philosophy this should be just fine; these are the Pharmaceuticals drugs after all. If you dont like the price, go somewhere else. Oh, there is nowhere else? 'Too bad, so sad. You are probably just a lazy bum anyway.' says the Libertarian.

What say you Libertarians; should these Pharmaceutical CEOs be in prison? I would say they should be put against a wall and shot.

We have all heard of the scum bag Shkreli, but he is not alone in price gouging fellow Americans with monopolistic drug prices.

If the market is perfectly price efficient, then how can you explain the need for the government to bust up these monopoly rackets? How is the market supposed to do that? Oh, get rid of patent rights? Get rid of the rights to a product? lol

This is in part why we have government, to prevent the strong from preying on the weak, but that is OK under Libertarianism as long as there is no violence, sometimes they argue against fraud also, but these cases involved neither. Guess people just shouldnt get sick; so its their own damned fault, right?

AIDS Drug Price Raised From $13.50 to $750 Per Pill, An Increase of Over 5000% - Rebates.com
Martin Shkreli, a Pharmaceutical businessman and a former hedge fund manager raised the price of the Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 for every tablet after purchasing its rights. A few years ago, one tablet of Daraprim used to cost slightly above $1 which was affordable to most patients. With the change of rights from one company to the other, the price has been increasing gradually. However, the trend took a dramatic turn when Shkreli purchased the rights of the AIDS drug. Daraprim has been used for 62 years to treat severe parasitic infections. The price change came as a surprise to many as most patients are expected to struggle purchasing a single tablet. The price is said to have been increased by 5500%. Yet, Shkreli still emphasizes that the drug is still underpriced.

This is another example of why the shibboleth is false that 'the value of an item is the price its owner is willing to part with it'. Does the 'real' value of an item go up by a factor of 750 times its previous price simply because the new owner is a moral cretin?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/big-price-increase-for-tb-drug-is-rescinded.html
Cycloserine was acquired last month by Rodelis Therapeutics, which promptly raised the price to $10,800 for 30 capsules, from $500.But the company agreed to return the drug to its former owner, a nonprofit organization affiliated with Purdue University, the organization said on Monday.

Here the mean old gubbermint was the hero, making these greedy bastard rescind their purchase as they were not going to be able to shake down the American public with these kinds of price gouging price hikes.

But the government doing this is wrong according to Libertarianism.

Ovation's drug price hike leads to lawsuit | FiercePharma
Ovation Pharmaceuticals may be in hot water. The company, which dedicates itself to drugs for rare medical conditions, purchased the rights to Merck's Indocin in 2005, bought a rival drug in 2006 and then hiked the prices of both, according to allegations made by the Federal Trade Commission. Indocin is a medication used to treat a congenital condition called patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), which occurs in some premature babies and can be fatal without medication. About 30,000 newborns a year receive medication to treat a PDA.

The FTC says Ovation bought out its only competitor, and then charged "monopoly prices," to the tune of about a 1,300 percent increase in price. The competitor medication, NeoProfen, was under development by Abbott Laboratories when Ovation purchased it and subsequently received FDA approval.

When Ovation originally purchased the product from Merck, it raised the price from $10 to $36 per vial, but after buying the competing drug in 2006, the FTC says it raised the price of both Indocin and NeoProfen to nearly $500 per vial

But hey,that is AOK according to Libertarians, isnt it? There was no fraud, no violence, that was only on the part of the mean old gubbermint when it threatened VIOLENCE against these price gouging bastards.

So 30,000 babies would have just suffered or their lazy stupid parents should have had to just hand over the money. Right?

Libertarianism is a systematic excuse to defend moral evil.

 

[Moonglow]

I've never met a libertarian that practiced humanism...

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've never met a libertarian that practiced humanism...

Those concepts are inherently antithetical.

 

[Moonglow]

I've never met a libertarian that practiced humanism...

Those concepts are inherently antithetical.

They also seem to be on the verge of being pre-industrial anarchist...

 

[Mac1958]

Libertarianism Applied; Pharmaceutical Price Abuse is AOK

Libertarians dont like talking about the freedom to price gouge the helpless poor, babies and HIV patients.

According to Libertarian philosophy this should be just fine; these are the Pharmaceuticals drugs after all. If you dont like the price, go somewhere else. Oh, there is nowhere else? 'Too bad, so sad. You are probably just a lazy bum anyway.' says the Libertarian.

What say you Libertarians; should these Pharmaceutical CEOs be in prison? I would say they should be put against a wall and shot.

We have all heard of the scum bag Shkreli, but he is not alone in price gouging fellow Americans with monopolistic drug prices.

If the market is perfectly price efficient, then how can you explain the need for the government to bust up these monopoly rackets? How is the market supposed to do that? Oh, get rid of patent rights? Get rid of the rights to a product? lol

This is in part why we have government, to prevent the strong from preying on the weak, but that is OK under Libertarianism as long as there is no violence, sometimes they argue against fraud also, but these cases involved neither. Guess people just shouldnt get sick; so its their own damned fault, right?

AIDS Drug Price Raised From $13.50 to $750 Per Pill, An Increase of Over 5000% - Rebates.com
Martin Shkreli, a Pharmaceutical businessman and a former hedge fund manager raised the price of the Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 for every tablet after purchasing its rights. A few years ago, one tablet of Daraprim used to cost slightly above $1 which was affordable to most patients. With the change of rights from one company to the other, the price has been increasing gradually. However, the trend took a dramatic turn when Shkreli purchased the rights of the AIDS drug. Daraprim has been used for 62 years to treat severe parasitic infections. The price change came as a surprise to many as most patients are expected to struggle purchasing a single tablet. The price is said to have been increased by 5500%. Yet, Shkreli still emphasizes that the drug is still underpriced.

This is another example of why the shibboleth is false that 'the value of an item is the price its owner is willing to part with it'. Does the 'real' value of an item go up by a factor of 750 times its previous price simply because the new owner is a moral cretin?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/big-price-increase-for-tb-drug-is-rescinded.html
Cycloserine was acquired last month by Rodelis Therapeutics, which promptly raised the price to $10,800 for 30 capsules, from $500.But the company agreed to return the drug to its former owner, a nonprofit organization affiliated with Purdue University, the organization said on Monday.

Here the mean old gubbermint was the hero, making these greedy bastard rescind their purchase as they were not going to be able to shake down the American public with these kinds of price gouging price hikes.

But the government doing this is wrong according to Libertarianism.

Ovation's drug price hike leads to lawsuit | FiercePharma
Ovation Pharmaceuticals may be in hot water. The company, which dedicates itself to drugs for rare medical conditions, purchased the rights to Merck's Indocin in 2005, bought a rival drug in 2006 and then hiked the prices of both, according to allegations made by the Federal Trade Commission. Indocin is a medication used to treat a congenital condition called patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), which occurs in some premature babies and can be fatal without medication. About 30,000 newborns a year receive medication to treat a PDA.

The FTC says Ovation bought out its only competitor, and then charged "monopoly prices," to the tune of about a 1,300 percent increase in price. The competitor medication, NeoProfen, was under development by Abbott Laboratories when Ovation purchased it and subsequently received FDA approval.

When Ovation originally purchased the product from Merck, it raised the price from $10 to $36 per vial, but after buying the competing drug in 2006, the FTC says it raised the price of both Indocin and NeoProfen to nearly $500 per vial

But hey,that is AOK according to Libertarians, isnt it? There was no fraud, no violence, that was only on the part of the mean old gubbermint when it threatened VIOLENCE against these price gouging bastards.

So 30,000 babies would have just suffered or their lazy stupid parents should have had to just hand over the money. Right?

Libertarianism is a systematic excuse to defend moral evil.

They have a lot to defend, and it doesn't take much effort to characterize them as selfish and short-sighted.

The idea of libertarianism is nice to have around, as are other ideas. But they've been sold a pretty lousy bill of goods.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've never met a libertarian that practiced humanism...

Those concepts are inherently antithetical.

They also seem to be on the verge of being pre-industrial anarchist...

Anyone that thinks we can return to the social safety net of a predominately rural, small town past way of doing things is simply not thinking the matter through or is delusional.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They have a lot to defend, and it doesn't take much effort to characterize them as selfish and short-sighted.

The idea of libertarianism is nice to have around, as are other ideas. But they've been sold a pretty lousy bill of goods.
.

Libertarianism has a good contribution to polite discussion as long as one doesnt take their system of thought too seriously and try to actually put it into practice.

Many ideas are like that; Marxism, new jeans with holes in them, making community organizers President, deep fried peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, letting your kids do the laundry, etc.

 

[Mac1958]

They have a lot to defend, and it doesn't take much effort to characterize them as selfish and short-sighted.

The idea of libertarianism is nice to have around, as are other ideas. But they've been sold a pretty lousy bill of goods.
.

Libertarianism has a good contribution to polite discussion as long as one doesnt take their system of thought too seriously and try to actually put it into practice.

Many ideas are like that; Marxism, new jeans with holes in them, making community organizers President, deep fried peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, letting your kids do the laundry, etc.

Yep. I agree completely that we want to make a serious and sincere effort to minimize wasteful spending, to minimize dependence on government, etc... But, the term "minimize" is subjective, not literal, and that's where they go off the rails. Most people want to minimize those things, the task is in finding the proper equilibrium.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To be completely fair, and give the other side a bit here, there are good implementations of libertarianism, like the transgender bathroom thing.

Why do we look to the government to make a law enforcing bathroom policies? Why not let the businesses and their customers make that decision? IS anyone being irreparably harmed if they found out that that girl in the stall next to them once had a penis? Not saying that removing a penis makes one a girl, but if they look like it enough that it doesnt cause you to call the matter into question, why is this an issue for the government to settle by law? A guy that gets his wang removed is probably not all that interested in a glimpse of pussy.

Yes, some obvious dude going into a girls bathroom to scope out the prey, sure, that is wrong and should be segregated, but why does the government have to do it? Why not let the business owner decide to file trespassing charges or not and leave it at that? This is where a more libertarian approach, IMO, is justified. This also falls under Subsidiarity and letting the lowest level of government possible handle the whole thing, in this case the owner and customers.

But these kinds of cases are few and largely inconsequential compared to the generally large scale damage to our society that Libertarianism is causing by allowing amoral greedily stupid business practices.

 

[midcan5]

Libertarianism is the spoiled child excuse for immorality.

Why is libertarianism wrong?
Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Rust Belt Philosophy: Okay, seriously, what the fuck is a "statist"

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yep. I agree completely that we want to make a serious and sincere effort to minimize wasteful spending, to minimize dependence on government, etc... But, the term "minimize" is subjective, not literal, and that's where they go off the rails. Most people want to minimize those things, the task is in finding the proper equilibrium.
.

Isnt that the beauty of the democratic process though, to let the public vote for the degree to which we need the government minimized to?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer the decision to be made by a committee of 100 people taken randomly from a phone book that by elite selected experts, God forbid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"According to Libertarian philosophy this should be just fine; these are the Pharmaceuticals drugs after all. If you dont like the price, go somewhere else. Oh, there is nowhere else? 'Too bad, so sad. You are probably just a lazy bum anyway.' says the Libertarian."

Remember that libertarianism is fundamentally utopian, where in a ‘true libertarian’ society price gouging would ‘never occur,’ as the factors facilitating price gouging simply wouldn’t exist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Libertarianism is the spoiled child excuse for immorality.

Why is libertarianism wrong?
Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Rust Belt Philosophy: Okay, seriously, what the fuck is a "statist"

Lol, most of those are spot on.

Of course you give away a general lack of comprehension of libertarianism when you do not respect the right of an unborn child to be protected from violence, right?

That is why Ron Paula and his son the senator are totally 100% against abortion.

You sound like the type that thinks abortion is just peachy keen, though and the 20 million babies slaughtered in the American holocaust just a bunch of tissue samples, right?

This would be another case where I agree with Libertarians over Jacobins always ready to find a reason to slaughter the innocent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Isn’t that the beauty of the democratic process though, to let the public vote for the degree to which we need the government minimized to?”

‘The beauty’ is actually a representative democracy, in the context of our Constitutional Republic, where elected representatives make decisions based on facts, evidence, and the rule of law – including the ‘size’ of government.

 

[Mac1958]

Speaking for myself, I would prefer the decision to be made by a committee of 100 people taken randomly from a phone book that by elite selected experts, God forbid.

Can't argue!

And yes, another thing the libertarians don't seem to understand is that the size & scope of government is not much more than the will of the people, expressed at the ballot box. And what happens at the ballot box is the result of the messaging that takes place during campaigns.

This ain't complicated stuff. As long as they choose to not improve their messaging, they'll continue to push people away.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Speaking for myself, I would prefer the decision to be made by a committee of 100 people taken randomly from a phone book that by elite selected experts, God forbid.

Can't argue!

And yes, another thing the libertarians don't seem to understand is that the size & scope of government is not much more than the will of the people, expressed at the ballot box. And what happens at the ballot box is the result of the messaging that takes place during campaigns.

This ain't complicated stuff. As long as they choose to not improve their messaging, they'll continue to push people away.
.

Yeah, but now a great many of them are engaging in political fraud, seeking positions of power in the GOP so they can implement their ideas from political ambush, not winning the discussion in a market place of ideas.

That makes them dangerous in a drunk-behind-the-wheel kind of way.

 

[Mac1958]

Speaking for myself, I would prefer the decision to be made by a committee of 100 people taken randomly from a phone book that by elite selected experts, God forbid.

Can't argue!

And yes, another thing the libertarians don't seem to understand is that the size & scope of government is not much more than the will of the people, expressed at the ballot box. And what happens at the ballot box is the result of the messaging that takes place during campaigns.

This ain't complicated stuff. As long as they choose to not improve their messaging, they'll continue to push people away.
.

Yeah, but now a great many of them are engaging in political fraud, seeking positions of power in the GOP so they can implement their ideas from political ambush, not winning the discussion in a market place of ideas.

That makes them dangerous in a drunk-behind-the-wheel kind of way.

YES. They have pushed their way into the GOP because they know they can't do it as an independent party. They've brought along their absolutism and purity and infected the entire party with it. Until they're marginalized, the party will continue on like this.

How the hell do they get marginalized, though?
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

YES. They have pushed their way into the GOP because they know they can't do it as an independent party. They've brought along their absolutism and purity and infected the entire party with it. Until they're marginalized the party will continue on like this.

How the hell do they get marginalized, though?
.

Most of them scurried like little cockroaches to the Cruz campaign once Rand dropped out.

So give Trump the nomination then purge the Libertarians from the party supported leadership cadre like Romney did to everyone else when he won in 2012.

 

[Mac1958]

YES. They have pushed their way into the GOP because they know they can't do it as an independent party. They've brought along their absolutism and purity and infected the entire party with it. Until they're marginalized the party will continue on like this.

How the hell do they get marginalized, though?
.

Most of them scurried like little cockroaches to the Cruz campaign once Rand dropped out.

So give Trump the nomination then purge the Libertarians from the party supported leadership cadre like Romney did to everyone else when he won in 2012.

And by the way, the Democrats are suffering from a similar affliction: They've been taken over by the Regressive Left.

It really is amazing how similar the behaviors of the two ends of the spectrum are.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And by the way, the Democrats are suffering from a similar affliction: They've been taken over by the Regressive Left.

It really is amazing how similar the behaviors of the two ends of the spectrum are.
.

The William F Buckley vrs Gore Vidal incident pushed the media into left vrs right modus operandi for covering politics when they saw how many viewers it drew.

The political system has slowly conformed tot he right vrs left paradigm for the last 50 years and it is grotesquely over simplified. But now the two parties in our duopoloy system use this simplistic spectrum to push voters into a polarized view of everything. They bank on those of us not happy with the Establishment pick to settle so that we dont end up with the 'catastrophic' choice of the other party winning instead. So they demonize the other candidate more than they promote their own and we have people who sincerely believe that the world will come to an end if the OTHER party gets the White House. And then they play fight for the cameras the rest of the time in which they are not running for office, which is a steadily shrinking period of time with each election cycle.