tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post6466631321070316507..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: Antibiotic Resistance, the Anarchist SolutionAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-21676624772003484042012-11-10T00:04:14.681-05:002012-11-10T00:04:14.681-05:00"Does that mean you believe citizens should b..."Does that mean you believe citizens should be allowed to copy drugs?" In a true anarchist society there would not be citizens, only individuals. and to answer your question by dismissing it, how would copying be disadvantageous to someone in an anarchist society?<br /><br /> I was responding so that you would not muddy the waters between anarchism and libertarianism (it seems only that libertarians do this and not anarchists)<br /><br />"Doesn't that mean you think citizens should be disallowed from promising not to, and if they negligently promise such anyway, shouldn't be held to that promise?"<br /><br />Citizens? we are not even talking from the same paradigm, so my answer might seem unsatisfactory to you. furthermore there are a lot more questions nested within these questions. it would take me an entire essay to disentagle. <br /><br />So I will answer it as best I can, without directly attending to any of them.<br /> <br />I am for full voluntary <br />association full stop and any such "bad" behaviours that would cause (not in this case the "copying" of drugs - how would this work without patents?) problems that are adverse to a group with shared goals will be rooted out through social exclusion. These people might move onto other groups and keep getting excluded, but this kind of human behavior cannot be stopped in any society (without some form of tyranical state control, I mean that in its literal snese because you get people like that now, and the only way to get rid of them would be to imprison them etc), so anarchism should not be expected to solve it, either. Rules in states are based on the exception (like the above), so the rules become more restricting to everyone. You can bet that it will go the same way in a true Free-Market, when the state has to arbitrate disputes over property rights, especcially "Drugs" (chemicals can be functionally alike and have slightly different molecular structure, so what are you patenting? these are the kind of decisions that will have to be arbitrated). This is not to say that your solution is not a good one, only that it is not anarchistic.<br /><br />I hope among all that gibberish I actually managed to answer your question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-67158354888325679642012-10-31T22:35:06.308-04:002012-10-31T22:35:06.308-04:00Does that mean you believe citizens should be allo...Does that mean you believe citizens should be allowed to copy drugs? <br /><br />Doesn't that mean you think citizens should be disallowed from promising not to, and if they negligently promise such anyway, shouldn't be held to that promise?Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-55475033539256417302012-10-31T18:27:54.304-04:002012-10-31T18:27:54.304-04:00I think your solution is good; but it is a liberta...I think your solution is good; but it is a libertarian solution not an anarchist one. the reason I say this is that selling a monopoly to an organization etc etc, requires the backing/coercive power of the state, especially if when someone enters into health insurance that same person needs to sign a contract, so that they don't "copy" the product; anarchists are anti-state and anti-coercive. Not saying that it won't work, or be beneficial, but it stinks to an anarchist of indirect (through the market) tyranny. Whereas a libertarian would whole-heartedly agree with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-21706890686080351802012-02-24T08:52:00.332-05:002012-02-24T08:52:00.332-05:00It uses the existing patent system...by which I me...It uses the existing patent system...by which I mean you've reminded me that I shouldn't be implicitly supporting the current patent system. <br /><br />Glad you like it, though. <br /><br />So I guess the insurance company should make any customer sign a contract promising not to copy their drug. It amounts to a patent system, but is voluntary instead of imposed. <br /><br />More generally, I don't believe security is necessarily a state monopoly, any more than other goods are. I probably should have mentioned it, rather than implicitly assuming it. <br /><br />In any case, 'we' should try it, small-scale, and see what happens. Epistemically speaking.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-28959196949627426062012-02-24T03:33:41.562-05:002012-02-24T03:33:41.562-05:00How is awarding and enforcing a private monopoly n...How is awarding and enforcing a private monopoly not "stronger state control"?<br /><br />Not that it's a bad idea, mind.Anomaly UKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780148789321563441noreply@blogger.com