Sivad wrote:You'd don't really need booze with pofo, just being on pofo is like huffing glue.
Don't go autistic on me buddy, people will begin to think you were fully vaccinated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is a good thing that I said “if”.
Good thing. We'd hate for you to act in accordance with your typical pattern of behavior.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really. People who do not vaccinate their children are relying on herd immunity to keep their children safe. If this significantly reduced consumption rates, these children would be significantly affected.
No.
the effect on the rates of consumption are not relevant to the claim that vaccines should not be mandated by the tyranny of bougeouis and that the billionaire capitalist class should not be protected from damages they cause to the working classes.
If you are discussing anything else other than this claim that I made several times already; then you are clearly debating a point that I am not.
Quit talking to yourself, it makes you look crazy.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems to assume perfect knowledge in the mind of the consumer, which is not a true assumption. It also assumes that judges in civil lawsuits are good arbiters of medical questions. This assumption is also incorrect.
How does the recognition that a product is essential and safe require perfect knowledge? Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.
(I never made this assumption FYI).
Likewise, a judge is not obligated to be an expert in medical science for his rulings to be just. This argument is
reductio ad absurdem, as it would imply that a civil judge could not rule on anything outside of his own expertise, hence no automotive suits, religious suits, gun suits, food safety suits, etc could ever be litigated.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this assumption that the free market is capable of delivering every single effective and useful good or service is not independent of experience.
That wasn't my assumption, that is your strawman make-believe going hay-wire again.
My assumption is the law of supply and demand; which is
a priori.
If a product is essential, then it is always in demand (otherwise it wouldn't be essential); thus, supply will always rise to meet this demand irrespective of government controls. Similarly, if a cure for black plague was offered in A.D. 1400, we don't have to speculate, we
KNOW that the demand would cause supply to rise because the need for such a cure would be
"essential." This does not require perfect knowledge on the part of medieval peasant, only that the cure exists and that it works and that someone is out there to provide it.
If a company provides such an essential service (as you claim); so long as they are ethical, they can expect guaranteed business. If they fuck up and are sued for damages ruled upon in a court of law, then competitors can replace them with similar services with less of the damages. If they ALL go out of business, this is likely because the product was either non-essential to begin with and/or the drawbacks outweighed the benefits and such could not be avoided by any of the companies in question.
This is all
a priori,
its FACT.
Indeed, that the government is protecting these companies will guarantee that they will be
less safe as they are protected from being sued from hurting people and have a guaranteed monopoly secured by the State.
In the free-market, the possibility of being sued out of existence is an incentive to make a safer products, given the current circumstance, there is no praxeological reason to believe that any such incentive exists for them now, AT ALL.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well it served the purpose of you making any sort of argument at all for it.So, if you are not goung to provide evidence for it, then you should at least provide a logical argument for it.
So we agree that you gave a false analogy then? Good.