Number two; the argument 'I can do what I want with my property' is simply unreal as no legal system allows an owner to harm others with his property. I build a dam on my property that bursts and floods your land destroying your house, crops and animals, am I therefore free of any responsibility by interposing the idiot argument; 'it's my land and I can do what I please.'
That's an obvious case of causing harm, and a p!ss poor straw man argument. Those downstream would suffer harm to life, liberty, property, and the fruits of their labors, which are theirs by right...through the ACTIONS of others. That's the purpose and justification for government. No reasonable person would dispute that.
Taking away property rights, however, to a drug patent...your economic "discourse" is lacking. If one wishes to have drugs which, by definition, do not exist today...the price of resultant, successful drugs must include:
---Actual cost to develop the drug
---Actual cost to produce, market and distribute the drug
---A proportional share of overhead
---Unrecovered costs of unsuccessful drugs
---A realistic rate of return
---A risk premium to cover uncertainty...including risk of well meaning, entitled ignorami who presume to decide for others their 'appropriate' reward...those who would eat the seed corn today, then blame others when there's no corn tomorrow.
Yours is the morality of gangsters and should be shunned. Those who object to paying the true costs of innovation suffer no harm...unless one holds that health care is a "right." Is that your position?
Is it your position someone who shares or sells their property on their terms causes harm to others? If someone 'needs' my chain saw, and I decline to offer it, I'm causing harm? If I don't help?
Fascinating.
The problem is that because of Obama care there are numerous examples of drug companies running up their prices because they can. They are the gangsters here.
Well said