How would a Libertarian society deal with the resurgence of diseases like Smallpox and Polio due to people not being...

How would a Libertarian society deal with the resurgence of diseases like Smallpox and Polio due to people not being able to afford the $30 000 a shot that drug companies would legally charge?

Try going on a diet XD

stirnerite anarchism is the way to go, it's free of NAP bullshit and jewery

Nobody can afford product
No sales
No more company

How are you

Just buy it from the competitor that decides to under cut the first company

Doesn't Assad block you from posting on this site? The Mukhabarat should be kicking in your door any minute.

Pretty much this.

Next argument would be: how you manage to survive from a rare disease?

And the answer: it looks like there is a market for insurances.

Libertarians are always right. Period. Fascist and communists BTFO!

I suggest studying economics. Whenever there is a market with high competitiveness a company would quickly make the vaccine and the price would extramente low.

the country would simply force them to handle vaccines out or shut them off, quite simple
capitalism is our system but you shouldnt push your luck
black market societies could do that tho

I think the real question is: how would a disease spread in a libertarian society if there are no roads to help spread it?

I'd shoot them on sight.
follow up with flamethrower

Ever heard about private roads?

Libertarian society means no patent laws. Some other company will just buy the thing for $30 000, recreate it and sell it for $20 000, the other company wont sell anything anymore and will have to lower their prices to $15 000 and so it goes on and on until both companies have reached a stable price people can pay. Supply and demand, fuck off monopoly kike

Of course whenever there's a problem the "free market" can't solve, it has to run crying back to the government it claims not to need.

creating a 30 bucks a shot drug

Yes but then company 2 would be sued company one in a private court for stealing their design.

And how many people die of preventable diseases while this price war goes on?

Well if only rich people can spread the disease, it won't spread very effectively

>I don't know the difference between a capitalist and a corporatist society

I bet you're the same kind of person who gets mad when people conflate socialism and communism.

Ok so what if the company released the Polio virus into the population, and then sold the cure at a reasonable price, like $5000 with Financing options if you can't afford to pay it outright

>Disregard the arguments by everyone except for the one guy who has as poor an understanding of libertarianism as you do

why is a bunch of people dying a bad thing? the result of the Black Plague was wealth redistribution and the Renaissance

Violation of the NAP.

If nobody could afford what they're charging, they won't make any sales. Which means they'd have to lower the price to something people could afford. So your scenario would never actually be a problem

Nah, road tolls are cheap, see

The NAP says you can't hurt the bacteria.
Better to import some more Mexicans to build the non-existent roads for the Fedora State

Physically remove them

Why does bread not cost $30 000?

>he seriously believes vaccines is what killed these diseases

retarded bluepill go back to le ddit

Suspend patents.

Lack of monopolies. Who stops monopolies in a libertarian society?

You are a fucking idiot. The rich would easily afford it and not even think twice about the price. This has always been the core problem with libertarianism, the rich live like kings, while the poor lose any way of improving themselves.

What are they teaching in your shithole? That Allah waved a magic wand and cured all disease?

wave a magic wand and make it affordable

k but if it costs 30 grand then how would any other society deal with it

People don't all have the same amount of money, so they might make lots of profit with the middle class, but the poor would all still die.

Government creates monopolies/oligopolies through artificial barriers of entry, though.

Australia bringing the mad bantz again. Shitposters my arse, moot is a bitch that could never handle the bantz.

how many rich people get smallpox and polio?

oy vey the invisible hand of god that they dont believe in

keep innoculating those heavy metals you autistic goytard

Derp.

Those vaccines are cheap to make. Just don't be a fucking retard and its not an issue.

A company willing to charge for less would make all the money while the company charging 30,000 would go out of business.

nuke the shit out of everyone who dares breathe over my picket fence for trespassing with their germs, obviously

Pretty sure monopolies form on their own through being competitive and deliberatley knocking out the competition. Oil refinement in the early days of the US is a good example.

If we go by that model, in order to get a vaccine we would need to set up our own vaccine companies that were always doomed to fail and then when STANDARD VACCINES dropped their prices to kill us we jump in and get our shots, giving no fucks about the vaccine company we set up.

Haha suckers.

You're the one taking refugee semen up the ass. I think we all know who the goy is here.

If anything, companies would give preferential treatment to rich people who want to get their treatment first.

What incentive does a company have to leave a fuckton of money on the table just to kill their main source of income?

...

Companies can out compete each other and if one does exceptionally well for a long enough time, they'll form a monopoly.
Just watch what happened with Rockefeller and his oil. He bought out all the competition and paid other people off to only transport his product.
What's stopping this from happening in libertarian land?

Libertarian land won't have intellectual property

American education strikes again.

It's quite simple. If they can make more money pricing the drug for the rich, than they can for the poor than that's what will happen.

in case you think your single payer healthcare optimizes its supply and delivery costs, you're either working for the government jew or deluded, or both

We already had continent wide libertarianism in Europe and it didnt work out. Everyone eventually killed the few libertarians.

?

Spreading disease is a violation of the NAP. The scenario is invalid.

>What's stopping this from happening in libertarian land
You're forgetting that Rockefeller had to become a monopoly by offering cheap oil. That meant that the people benefitted from his product. Besides, it's become easier than ever to challenge big companies on their monopolies when the government isn't artificially keeping them in power.

You're saying that it would be a disaster because people wouldn't be able to afford the drug, but why would the drug companies do that? Why would they charge so much for a product that nobody could buy it? That doesn't make any sense.
You have to ask yourself: Do people want this product? Are they willing to pay for it? Do companies want to profit from it? In the case of epidemic, the answer if yes, yes and yes. Everybody wants to be protected from disease and everyone is willing to pay a large portion of their income for this protection.
You need to compare this system of distribution to the alternative, the government system, what are the differences? The government would take money through taxes and supply the drug, whereas without government, people would trade the drug for money and businesses would supply the drug. The most obvious advantage of the latter is that due to the insane demand for protection against epidemic, people would be willing to quickly fund a cure, and businesses would therefore be even more responsive than a government. They amount of money they are able to make in this situation is proportionate to the danger of an epidemic. Another advantage is that the supply of the drug would be completely dependent on the best professionals, that is, businesses are only going to be able to earn the most money if they are able to provide the most effective drug with the most effective distribution.
Also, the money that the government would take through taxes would instead be left with the consumers who need the drug. The capitalist method of distribution would require the same amount of money - less if the government is suffocated by bureaucracy. There is no incentive for the government to be efficient. Government workers don't earn money distributing the drug, as long as enough people survive they will remain elected - whereas businesses would be looking to gain as much money as possible and can only do so by supplying the drug as much as possible.

>Violation of the NAP.

Who will enforce the NAP ?

And then a 2nd drug company will come along, see all the poor people who need medicine and see no competition, and so they'll supply the drugs to those people.

smith&wesson

Libertarians.

what would you suggest for breakfast?
russian airstrikes?

Kingdoms are an example of libertarian societies.

The thousands of angry militias and private military contractors who will be after their heads.

kill yourself

Feudalism violates the NAP

Competition.

If you Company A assumes 90% or even 100% of the market due to beating it's competitors it can still face the looming threat of new competitors getting in the market.

This means a Company that controls most of the market cannot simply inflate it's prices without risking a competitor to get in take business away.

It also can't practice predatory pricing forever (ie: operate at a loss until a competitor leaves the market) because as soon as it goes back into practicing normal costs, new competitors can simply come back to the market.

The true evil monopoly, is the one that can control entry to the markets through regulation, etc.

If a company dominates the market because it's just too damn good (great products at low cost) then i would argue the company deserves it.

What's to stop the first drug company from buying them out?

...

Standard Oil only remained a monopoly as long as it did because he would buy out politicians.

So there is no national military or law enforcment? Just a bunch of crazy people with ar-15's that will go around enforcing the law for free on their own time?

They'd have to offer enormous sums of money to beat out the profits the other company would make, and then a new startup company would end up taking their place anyways.

Smallpox and polio violate the NAP.
They will be dealt with accordingly.

There's law enforcement, and PMC's, and courts.

Which is why libertarianism failed. A victim of its own success. Eventually all the people that were suffering under libertarianism decided to end it.

I bet the few hundred libertarians that felt it was working fine got really pissed off when they were killed/deposed.

1) Start a charity foundation with the goal of eradicating said diseases.
2) Companies would most likely start seeing saving people as an investment, since the disease in case is killing the workforce at a worrying rate.

See, not that hard.

We have historic examples in many many countries where monopolies could not be competed with, wthout the state dismantling them. Its secondary school economics. Dont argue seriously in libertarian treads. Its a troll thread.

not really, they provide only a greater degree of accountability personified in the lord but there are no liberties to be had
yes, they don't plunder the land and don't think in terms of democratically elected officials within the duration of their terms
still that doesn't mean there's no NAP violation taking place, propertyless serfs can't do shit

They wouldn't spread in the first place.

No roads, you see.

Maybe you need to read up on Polio. It doesn't kill, it cripples. Corporations don't give a shit if you're crippled, as long as you're giving them money.

Can we get a fucked up diseases thread?

The kangs and Qwans are libertarians. The serfs are libertarians that wernt smart enough and didnt work hard enough.

See this is why we laugh at libertarian autists

The fucking tunnel vision...

>Implying the company doesn't sell a million other meds and sustains itself comfortably

>They'd have to offer enormous sums of money to beat out the profits the other company would make
They'd have that already from selling the drug. You really think the new company wouldn't sell?

Necrotising fasciitis and scalded baby syndrome. Thats all you need. Google.

how would a libertarian government enforce its will upon an unwilling populace?

I'm pretty sure IP and copyright laws would apply in a libertarian society.

tell me how does a serf become a lord? roadmap-wise

i've seen that shit before

Kill them with private military for violating the NAP. The serfs CHOOSE to work those lands.

A crippled worker isn't an efficient worker. Think about that, and the rest figures itself out.

Something like using someone's logo, absolutely.

Making a competing product? Hell no.

Yup, it's exactly what happened with the original company that was designing the operating software that became Windows NT.

Small pox only kills 5% of the people who get it. If 5% of the world died it would be a good thing for this over crowded shit hole.

communists would have achieved that in an afternoon

The bowling ebola doctor and the bike riding ebola nurse are exactly how our societies are going to respond to a disease crisis.

How? Libertarian societies rely on contracts, you can't enforce a contract that no on signed.

Sure, but they'd have to beat out all the profits the other company would make selling the drug to the poor masses, which would be huge. Once they pay them off, they then have to buy literally every company willing to sell to those people.

Fucking lol m8E. Employees are cogs in a machine. When one breaks down you replace the cog.