3 ms·
Violating property rights is more acceptable than regulation? I suspect that's not a widely held perspective. I, for one, really appreciate that things that be
by dangerlibrary 11y ago
Violating property rights is more acceptable than regulation? I suspect that's not a widely held perspective.
I, for one, really appreciate that things that belong to me continue to belong to me unless I sell them or don't pay my debts. I would accept fairly onerous regulation long before I would give up what I consider to be a fundamental benefit of not living in a failed state.
- venomsnake 11y ago> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Eminent domain is constitutional. That is the whole idea - try to profiteer too much from your government granted monopoly, and we may seize it while paying you some price that the courts deem fair. Couple of cases like that and the industry will tone itself down. And no regulations.
- dangerlibrary 11y agoRegulation is also constitutional.
- venomsnake 11y agoTrue that. And it depends on the situation which approach is better. If all drugs companies are profiteers - then regulation is the better and more effective option. If only some bad actors among them are - why burden the rest with regulation.
- raverbashing 11y agoExample: Antrax medication
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- JackFr 11y agoOK, but you realize that so-called intellectual property, as opposed to real property, is created out of thin air by law. And consider that this state-sanctioned monopoly is not created out of some moral or ethical notions of propriety, but out of the understanding that such a monopoly can serve the public good. When it ceases to serve the public good, there is reason to reconsider it.
- dangerlibrary 11y agoSure! But you're talking about repealing or modifying legislation (regulation) - not about leaving the rules in place but commandeering the property.