4 ms·
Society is better for seeing the pharmaceutical market regulations it desires carried out. Yes, that does mean individuals who cannot access/afford drugs will b
by randomdata 3y ago
Society is better for seeing the pharmaceutical market regulations it desires carried out. Yes, that does mean individuals who cannot access/afford drugs will be worse off, but thems the breaks of living in a society. Society can never cater to everyone. Someone will always be harmed by society.
After all, society can repeal the regulation if it wanted to – it created the regulations! But clearly it doesn't want to, because society recognizes it as a benefit and is willing to pay, perhaps as much as 10x more according to previous comments, to see that value delivered. That may not suit your or my fancy, but, again, society cannot cater to everyone.
Naturally, even society itself is both beneficial and detrimental, just like everything else. Tradeoffs, as always.
- jchanimal 3y agoThat’s just a “we’re in the best of all possible worlds” argument. The market should be shaped by people towards human aims. That means it’s useful to compare and contrast different regulatory captures and advocate for change. You’re basically saying there shouldn’t be discourse.
- randomdata 3y agoThe market is shaped by human aims. The laws we speak of were not handed down by aliens. They were specifically created by society for the benefit of society. There is no such thing as a best possible world. Not two people would ever be able to agree what that even is. Every benefit comes with a detriment. It's just a matter of what tradeoffs do you want to accept. Society has made its choice, seeing a regulated market as being more important than access to drugs for all (for now; that choice is fluid and able to change in the future should society change its views, but trying to predict the future is well beyond this discussion).