- 04 Feb 2019 16:09
#14985807
Two things can be essential, and yet be qualitatively different at the same time.
No, it is an exampke of a drilling service being provided on the open market. The fact that younuse this service to get yourself water is what is irrelevant, when we are looking at economics.
You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.
The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.
Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.
You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.
The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.
Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.
By the way, I have already provided counter examples.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If the former are essential, but the latter is "qualitatively different," then how is it essential?
If essential means something different for the latter category than it does for the former, than you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.
otherwise, you would need to use a different word than "essential" for the latter category which would then undermine your argument which rested on this term.
Two things can be essential, and yet be qualitatively different at the same time.
Irrelevant, this is an example of an essential water supply being provided on the open market via private exchange; regardless of whether I decide to sell this water or just keep it for myself.
If I created a town on my property and provided the water for this town; I own the water and can decide the rate for this water because its my water. If the rate is too high, you are free to leave and go somewhere else.
Its simple as that.
No, it is an exampke of a drilling service being provided on the open market. The fact that younuse this service to get yourself water is what is irrelevant, when we are looking at economics.
So no argument then? Thought so.
I already provided the arguments for my point.
You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.
The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.
Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.
Sure, I have shown that food and water never go to zero demand, even if several providers of such are sued out of existence or go bankrupt. This is because demand will ALWAYS remain high and Supply will ALWAYS rise to meet demand (the law of supply and demand).
This is true, no counter-examples exist. The law is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary.
If vaccines don't meet this criteria under the law of supply and demand, that would mean that they are not essential (which is what food and water are).
If they are not essential, then your justification for government protection of said industries is invalid.
You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.
The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.
Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.
By the way, I have already provided counter examples.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...