3 ms·

Because we've agreed that the public can't hunt these people down and kill them for this kind of nonsense.

nickff 11y ago
I have re-read your comment a dozen times, trying to grasp what you mean, and come up short each time. Do you mean to say that whenever a business makes a decision that you disagree with, you (or someone else) should feel morally entitled to go a kill the individuals working there? Or do you mean that whenever a business makes a decision that you disagree with, the state is entitled to focibly take the company? I personally find both to be morally problematic (to say the least), and unless you can establish a viewpoint neutral rule for this new criteria for nationalization (or murder), it will be enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  >I have re-read your comment a dozen times, trying to grasp what you mean, and come up short each time Keep trying, don't give up
- zem 11y ago
  would you complain about the state simply setting up a plant to manufacture and distribute a generic version of the drug, thereby driving the predatory company out of business? that seems like it would be an ideal solution that doesn't involve forcibly taking anything away from anyone.
  - nickff 11y ago
    I would have no moral objections to an alternative producer being set up (by the government or anyone else), so long as nobody is forced to buy from either one. There may be some practical issues (such as the regulator being a member of the same organization as the regulated producer), or issues with the scope (and scope creep) of the project, but those are only related issues.
    - elektromekatron 11y ago
      So you could be in favor of nationalisation, by way of making it common property, of the IP that supports his business, but not nationalisation of the business itself.
      - nickff 11y ago
        The IP that supports the business is already common property. As far as I understand it, the outrage here stems from exactly this fact, that the IP is common property, but they dramatically increased the prices. I am not sure what the reaction would have been if this was a patent-protected drug. Presumably the patent exists to allow for this type of dramatic price change (; though I do not support the current patent system).
        elektromekatron 11y ago
        I understand that they have currently secured a de-facto exclusive distribution right for the US market from the FDA. Ok, it isn't classic IP, but it has the same effect and as far as I understand it is transferable property, as otherwise this company would not have been able to acquire the rights in this way.
- eimai134 11y ago
  Check out the book The Sociopath Next Door - it talks about how there are so many sociopathic people today because societies used to conveniently do away with them. I'd guess this is similar to what the person is referring to.

I have re-read your comment a dozen times, trying to grasp what you mean, and come up short each time. Do you mean to say that whenever a business makes a decision that you disagree with, you (or someone else) should feel morally entitled to go a kill the individuals working there? Or do you mean that whenever a business makes a decision that you disagree with, the state is entitled to focibly take the company? I personally find both to be morally problematic (to say the least), and unless you can establish a viewpoint neutral rule for this new criteria for nationalization (or murder), it will be enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.

supercanuck 11y ago
>I have re-read your comment a dozen times, trying to grasp what you mean, and come up short each time Keep trying, don't give up
zem 11y ago
would you complain about the state simply setting up a plant to manufacture and distribute a generic version of the drug, thereby driving the predatory company out of business? that seems like it would be an ideal solution that doesn't involve forcibly taking anything away from anyone.
- nickff 11y ago
  I would have no moral objections to an alternative producer being set up (by the government or anyone else), so long as nobody is forced to buy from either one. There may be some practical issues (such as the regulator being a member of the same organization as the regulated producer), or issues with the scope (and scope creep) of the project, but those are only related issues.
  - elektromekatron 11y ago
    So you could be in favor of nationalisation, by way of making it common property, of the IP that supports his business, but not nationalisation of the business itself.
    - nickff 11y ago
      The IP that supports the business is already common property. As far as I understand it, the outrage here stems from exactly this fact, that the IP is common property, but they dramatically increased the prices. I am not sure what the reaction would have been if this was a patent-protected drug. Presumably the patent exists to allow for this type of dramatic price change (; though I do not support the current patent system).
      - elektromekatron 11y ago
        I understand that they have currently secured a de-facto exclusive distribution right for the US market from the FDA. Ok, it isn't classic IP, but it has the same effect and as far as I understand it is transferable property, as otherwise this company would not have been able to acquire the rights in this way.
eimai134 11y ago
Check out the book The Sociopath Next Door - it talks about how there are so many sociopathic people today because societies used to conveniently do away with them. I'd guess this is similar to what the person is referring to.