4 ms·

Just because someone, business or person doesn't want to continue a relationship with you, doesn't mean they are doing you harm. Harm is not doing something you

Just because someone, business or person doesn't want to continue a relationship with you, doesn't mean they are doing you harm. Harm is not doing something you don't like. Harm is purposely spilling nails and glass on the public road so that you can sell people more tires. If you are trying to take the pure libertarian stance, that whatever the free market dictates is ok, I am actually fine with that. But you can't grant Patents to companies in that situation and give them special legal protection. When the public grants you a legal monopoly and special protection, whether it is through a patent, or your local power company, they are only required to act responsibly and not take advantage of that protection. I actually think the most just punishment for Shkreli's actions would have been to open source all the medications he abused. So any person or business with the tools to combine the chemicals would be allowed to do so, and sell them for whatever price they wanted.

harryh 9y ago
There were no patents in play for any of the medications Shkreli's companies were selling.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  You are right about that. He is really only protected by the high cost of F.D.A. approval for generic drugs. In many ways Shkreli showed us the flaws and hypocrisy in our system, and helped show us what we need to do to create a better one. But I don't think that was his intended purpose. And it doesn't change my original argument.... Not giving to charity, is not the same thing as profiting from the exploration of vulnerable people, even if both things are technically legal. Edit: Rayiner, I can't reply to your comment but your analogy is completely wrong. It's like a Fire Department used to put out house fires for $50. And Martin identified one street on the outskirts of town that vulnerable, and he purchased the contract to protect that street from the Fire Department... and now charges them $10,000 for putting out fires. It's not 'the same' as the guy who does nothing. He didn't INVENT helping them, like every one of these crazy analogies suggest. They were being helped much better before he got there and he made the situation a lot worse for them. You can't ignore that context and set it up as a choice between "Not being helped" or "Being helped for an exorbitant price".
  - rayiner 9y ago
    He’s not protected by that either—Imprimis released a competing generic shortly after the price hikes. All Shkreli did was identify a mispriced drug, and profit during the short duration it took for the market to correct itself. You’re begging the question: what is “exploitation?” Is it “exploitation” to make money from helping someone? If so, why is that worse than not helping someone at all? It’s like saying the guy who charges $10,000 to put the fire out on your house is worse than the guy who doesn’t do anything.

harryh 9y ago

There were no patents in play for any of the medications Shkreli's companies were selling.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
You are right about that. He is really only protected by the high cost of F.D.A. approval for generic drugs. In many ways Shkreli showed us the flaws and hypocrisy in our system, and helped show us what we need to do to create a better one. But I don't think that was his intended purpose. And it doesn't change my original argument.... Not giving to charity, is not the same thing as profiting from the exploration of vulnerable people, even if both things are technically legal. Edit: Rayiner, I can't reply to your comment but your analogy is completely wrong. It's like a Fire Department used to put out house fires for $50. And Martin identified one street on the outskirts of town that vulnerable, and he purchased the contract to protect that street from the Fire Department... and now charges them $10,000 for putting out fires. It's not 'the same' as the guy who does nothing. He didn't INVENT helping them, like every one of these crazy analogies suggest. They were being helped much better before he got there and he made the situation a lot worse for them. You can't ignore that context and set it up as a choice between "Not being helped" or "Being helped for an exorbitant price".
- rayiner 9y ago
  He’s not protected by that either—Imprimis released a competing generic shortly after the price hikes. All Shkreli did was identify a mispriced drug, and profit during the short duration it took for the market to correct itself. You’re begging the question: what is “exploitation?” Is it “exploitation” to make money from helping someone? If so, why is that worse than not helping someone at all? It’s like saying the guy who charges $10,000 to put the fire out on your house is worse than the guy who doesn’t do anything.