Economic freedom is massively correlated with prosperity and growth.
Who are these Austrian economic led countries that you are comparing to the mixed economies?


Compensation for negative externalities is not outside the scope of libertarianism and those are NOT natural monopolies, especially not pharma which i've already went over in this thread.
You are going to have to come up with better examples than that.
Here you go: https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
There are also plenty of Austrians and libertarians that are minarchists.
Austrian economics and libertarianism also don't preclude people from negotiation, regulation, or arranging their utilities however they see fit.

Its amazing that in order to defend the legality of freedom of association I have to defend every point of complete anarchy from the peanut gallery.



This is truly pathetic.
I briefly compliment a couple guys and you come up with insults and a strawman that I said they can do no wrong? really?

'In other words' you have no argument.



Oh there are plenty of downsides for some people.
Those enjoying government granted monopolies and protectionism are in worse shape.
Those wishing to force their beliefs on others and stomp out diversity have a much harder time.
Those wishing to live off of others involuntarily have to seek out voluntary means.
People who were able to buy price fixed goods at a lower price would have to pay more until supply is increased, while others have better access to those goods.
Those wishing to wage unpopular wars of aggression struggle to find as much funding and cant conscript people.
etc.

Yes there is some sort of trade off in every situation.
The pros of voluntary interactions and increased prosperity vastly outweigh the cons in my view.

Instead of addressing the points you chime in with your immature bullshit and absolutist misrepresentations of what I say.

Your implications about the pharma troll are again completely unfounded.
His motivation for buying it and jacking up the price so high was totally related to the government regulation blocking out his competition. This is undeniably true when you look at the facts.
In a free market the drug would be available from many other suppliers for a small fraction of the cost as we see in other countries and it wouldn't matter what he raised the prices to.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 28 2015 07:30am

somehow i'm not surprised

You shouldn't be surprised that I wont concede a point to you that I am right about.

no worries, at least you've established an identity for yourself as our resident libertarian hack

Right when you cant make any intelligent points keep trying this tired personal attack garbage in place of an argument.
If they have libertarian beliefs they must be evil or a hack or think every libertarian can do no wrong.
Im sure that makes you feel a lot better about your ignorance and complete ineptitude.

He's lowering the drug cost anyways, public backlash/outcry was extremely high.

This post was edited by obisent on Sep 28 2015 08:31am

In regards to the pharma's you would be abolishing patent rights naturally since there would be no enforcement besides the might of the companies own police force?

if any phram company can experiment and "develop a drug for human consumption, in the free society they would just release it for distribution
customer be damned?
If it winds up not having the desired outcome or worse winds up causing worse than the intended cure. "So what!" the only action against them is people slowly stop buying the product as word of mouth spreads. But if their Ad. campaign is better at spin control than any personal word of mouth testimonials it could result in tens of thousands of people dead. With still no recourse on the company. In a free society. Correct?

you're not the only one with libertarian ideas around here fyi

it's just that some people believe in sensible restraints on individual freedoms while you do not cuz you're a nutter

This post was edited by duffman316 on Sep 28 2015 09:05am

Yes.
I oppose government granted monopolies on drugs.


Not customer be damned. Customer be saved.
There still exists a massive incentive for drugs that aren't going to kill everyone, including a high demand for safety tests.
It should be up for the consumer to decide if they think a drug is worth it or not, NOT a government agency banning its distribution for years and making it much more expensive or illegal to do so, which ends up killing people who want to try unapproved methods to save their life but are prevented from doing so.


This is unadulterated fear mongering right out of a science fiction movie.
yes the profit motive remains a strong one for pharma distributors. Killing your customers isn't very profitable.

Yes its possible a company could sell bad drugs that kill people. This happens right now too.
They could also walk down the street with an AK47 blasting everyone in sight, but most people have a very strong incentive not to do so.

Its not 'so what'. Fraud, criminal negligence and murder are still concepts in a society without drug patents and strict govt regulations.
Do you think preventing people from getting life saving drugs they desire is more moral than allowing people to sell drugs to people who are willing to buy them?
Its now you guys on the side of the monopolists working against the common people using scare tactics to justify using force against them instead of respecting their right to choose.
This is a recurring theme. You think you know better or have superior morals so you want to force everyone else to do what you prefer.

No one forces you to use drugs that haven't been tested to your satisfaction.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 28 2015 09:06am

more like out of reality, the one you keep denying in favour of libertarian fantasies
http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2013/12/unregulated-dietary-supplements-still-killing-people/