False dichotomy. You said "Monopolies are okay when the the good in question only exists because of the monopolist."
I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this.
Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc.
>I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this.
That's what my rule was assuming. I'm not claiming that it's true of any particular drug, only that if it is, then the monopoly is okay.
>Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc.
I wasn't saying the monopoly is optimal, just "okay", as in "not bad for the reasons we traditionally think of monopolies as being bad". It's why a monopoly on salt is intuitively stupider my monopoly on my labor.
I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this.
Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc.