@MikeGardocki@NCRanarchist@scotthortonshow There would be no state monopoly on violence without a state, yes. Security and related services would still be available privately, as they already are. Some think it'll be part of insurance services.
I tweeted that @RobertKennedyJr raised some important questions about vaccine safety and now I am being labeled a Qanon conspiracist by some and a member of the alt-right by others.
I have long believed that incentives drive all human behavior. This gives me reason to be open to the potential risks and conflicts as more and more vaccines are prescribed for our children.
Developing a successful drug is expensive, typically about $1 to $2 billion, and it takes an average of 10-15 years to bring a drug to market. Most drugs have a limited market, that is, those who have the targeted disease or condition who can afford to pay for the cost of the drug.
Even when a successful drug is brought to market, the drug company remains liable for any potential damages from those who are harmed by the drug.
The above reasons are why getting profitable drugs approved is challenging and risky.
Imagine, however, if:
(1) you could create a drug in a much shorter period of time, a year or two, rather than 10-15 years, and the total cost to get it approved and marketed to patients was a fraction of the cost of a typical drug.
(2) the new drug is prescribed for everyone, regardless of their health, and therefore the market for the drug is every newborn or potentially everyone on the planet.
(3) the drug is prescribed for everyone regardless of their age or consent and they need to take it in order to attend school or keep their job, and the gov’t pays for it.
(4) the patients who are prescribed the drug are of an age where they are incapable of assessing the risk versus the reward for taking the drug.
(5) the drug needs to be taken every year regardless of the health of the individual who takes it.
(6) the drug companies who manufacture these new drugs are exempt from liability for these drugs even if they cause serious harm or death.
and
(7) drug companies are: (a) permitted to advertise on TV and on other media and are one of the largest sources of revenues for the news media who are responsible for educating the public about risks to public health and safety, and (b) the drug companies are also major lobbyists to the government and funders of the FDA.
If (1) - (7) were true:
and you were a drug company, you would seek to obtain approval for as many of the above drugs as possible, as the above drugs would have the lowest R&D costs, the fastest time to market, the lowest marketing costs, the largest addressable market, and no liability.
You would be crazy not to develop as many of the above drugs as possible and do everything possible to convince the government to make them standard of care, and motivate the public to take them.
If you were a citizen, however, you would want the above drugs to receive the highest scrutiny for safety and efficacy, and you would want longitudinal studies to understand the long-term effects and the potential cumulative effects of these drugs, in particular, on children.
Now, if the number of doses of these drugs taken by children increased from 3 to 72 in the last 30 or so years, and over the same period there was a massive unexplained increase in the percentage of kids that suffered from debilitating diseases like autism and other less debilitating, but concerning issues, like allergies and eczema, you would look deeper until you understood what was causing the massive increase in these issues.
Now, of course, I am talking about vaccines. But instead of going deeper to understand what is going on, the media and others attack anyone who dares to raise these concerns.
This is not how we get to the truth.
We need to think about vaccines the same way we think about other drugs, particularly when we are deciding whether or not to inject a one-day-old infant or three-year-old child.
We need to assess what is the benefit to the child in protecting them from a disease versus the potential risk from the side effects from each vaccine.
@TruthLocked @Ur_a_Smartass_C Look, I get it. And to steel man your side, you often die at an older age from heart attack. You can personally choose to live better and improve your health, while you can do less to prevent being shot. The question is, regardless of how you feel, what can be done?
@gunbunny15@amoore199401@Ur_a_Smartass_C Lot more good guys than bad. If everyone was armed, sheer numbers would eat away at the bad guys over time. Gotta protect yourself, no one else will.
Also bad guys don't follow gun laws.
@HP_Libertarian@VivekGRamaswamy If you believe in power for the people, you believe in the second amendment. Anything else is power to the elites over everyone else.